One safe prediction about 2026 is that it will be another momentous year at the U.S. Supreme Court. The matters already on the docket, as well as those likely to arrive, promise many blockbuster decisions that will shape American government and directly affect people’s lives in a myriad of ways. Here are some of the stories to look for.

The Supreme Court and President Trump

This country never has seen a president do so many arguably unconstitutional and illegal acts. Dozens have been enjoined by federal district courts. But repeatedly, and with only rare exceptions, when the cases have come to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket, the conservative justices have ruled in favor of President Donald Trump.

In the coming year, though, the court for the first time will have challenges to President Trump’s actions during this term on its merits docket. A number of cases are already before the court, and more are sure to arrive. In November, the court heard oral arguments in two cases—Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and VOS Selections v. Trump—challenging the legality of the tariffs President Trump has imposed. The legal issue is primarily about whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides authority for the tariffs. Underlying the cases, though, are constitutional considerations regarding Congress’ power to control taxes and the president’s conduct of foreign policy.

In December, the court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, which involved President Trump firing a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter, despite a federal law allowing removal only for “cause.” The issue is whether the Supreme Court should overrule a 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which holds Congress can create federal agencies and limit removal of their commissioners to where there is good cause.

In January, the court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Cook, which concernts whether President Trump acted illegally in firing Lisa Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve Board. How far will the court go in embracing the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president is in charge of the entire executive branch of government and can fire anyone within it?

This spring, the court will hear oral arguments and decide Trump v. Barbara, which involves the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order greatly limiting birthright citizenship. From the founding of the nation until Jan. 20, 2025, with only limited exceptions, the law has been that all born in the United States are citizens of this country. This is codified in the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every lower court to rule has found President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to be unconstitutional. Will the Supreme Court come to the same conclusion?

These are just the cases involving President Trump already on the merits docket of the Supreme Court. There are sure to be many more involving issues such as the legality of the Trump administration’s impoundment and withholding of federal money appropriated by Congres;s, President Trump’s federalizing state national guards and using troops for domestic law enforcement; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion; and the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, which provides for summary deportation of individuals from enemy countries when the United States is in a declared war or faces imminent invasion. And there certainly will continue to be a plethora of matters concerning presidential actions that come to the court on its emergency docket.

The culture wars before the court

Issues concerning the rights of transgender individuals have been at the heart of the culture wars. In the last year, the Supreme Court has shown little sympathy for the rights of these individuals. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court, 6-3, upheld the constitutionality of a Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In United States v. Shilling, the court, on its emergency docket, stayed a lower court order preventing the exclusion of transgender individuals from the military. In Trump v. Orr, another matter on the emergency docket, the court stayed a lower court order preventing the State Department from requiring passports to state a person’s sex designated at birth rather than their gender identity.

On Jan. 13, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases—Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.—that involve the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in sports that correspond to their gender identity. Practically speaking, the laws are about keeping transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

Another case with culture war implications was argued in October but will be decided in 2026: Chiles v. Salazar. The issue is the constitutionality of a Colorado statute that prohibits conversion therapy for gay, lesbian and transgender youth. Colorado says that such therapy is ineffective and harmful, and that the state has the power to regulate professionals to protect people. Challengers argue that this is an unconstitutional restriction of speech.

The Voting Rights Act

In 2026, the court will decide Louisiana v. Callais, which was reargued Oct. 15 and involves Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 prohibits state and local governments from having election systems that discriminate against voters of color. In 1982, Congress amended this to provide that proof of a racially discriminatory impact is sufficient for liability; there does not have to be proof of discriminatory intent.

After the 2020 census, Louisiana’s legislature drew new congressional districts. A three-judge federal district court declared the districts to violate Section 2 because there was only one district that had a majority of Black individuals—in a state where the population was 33% Black individuals. The Louisiana legislature then redrew the districts so that two of six had a majority of Black residents. The three-judge court declared this to violate equal protection, concluding that race had been impermissibly used as a predominant factor in drawing the districts.

The oral arguments left no doubt that the conservative justices want to narrow Section 2. But will they go as far as Justice Clarence Thomas urged in his Louisiana v. Callais dissent in June, where he contended that disparate impact liability inherently violates equal protection because it requires that decision-makers must consider race in order to avoid liability? If the court takes that position, then disparate impact liability under other federal laws and under many state laws also would be in jeopardy.

Pending on the docket—but certiorari has not yet been granted—is the issue of whether private parties can continue to bring suits to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, contrary to every other court, found that such suits are not permissible and that only the United States can sue to enforce Section 2. In July, the court, on its emergency docket, stayed the 8th Circuit’s decision, but a petition for certiorari is pending. It would be devastating to Section 2 enforcement if suits to enforce it only could be brought by the United States Department of Justice.

Second Amendment

The court returns to the Second Amendment in a couple of cases to be argued in early 2026. In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the court held that gun regulations are constitutional only if they are of a type that is supported by history and tradition. This has led to an enormous amount of litigation challenging every type of gun law, hundreds of lower court decisions, and great confusion in the law.

In Wolford v. Lopez, to be argued Jan. 20, the court will consider the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that provides that licensed gun owners may bring their firearms on to private property open to the public only with the permission of the property owner. In United States v. Hemani, to be argued this spring, the court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits a person from owning a gun if they are “an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance.”

Will there be a resignation? Clarence Thomas is 77 years old, and Samuel Alito is 75. As ardent conservatives, they may want to retire so that President Trump can replace them with younger conservatives, keeping these seats on the court in conservative hands for decades to come.

They also know that if the Democrats take control of the Senate in November 2026, no Trump nomination for the court will be confirmed during the last two years of his presidency. Democrats surely would copy the playbook of Republicans who refused to confirm President Barack Obama’s nomination of then-Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

The November 2026 election map seems to favor Republicans keeping control of the Senate. Will either or both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito choose to remain, figuring that they can wait until 2028 to have Trump replace them? Or will one or both step down this summer, knowing that the Republican Senate is likely to confirm almost anyone President Trump nominates?

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law. He’s also the author of many books, including his most recent ones: Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times and The Supreme Court October Term 2024: Taking Sides.