In 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will confront a slate of cases with the potential to reshape major areas of law, from the scope of presidential power to civil rights and Second Amendment protections. The justices are also expected to continue taking on high-stakes cases through both their regular and emergency dockets.
SCOTUS Year End Report
Shortly before the new year, Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote the 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary where he did not squarely address the ongoing political controversies or recent high-profile cases. Instead, he stressed the continued importance of the nation’s founding documents.
“Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken,” he wrote. Roberts added President Calvin Coolidge’s affirmation: “True then; true now.”
The Chief Justice also underscored the idea that all three branches of government share responsibility for upholding constitutional promises, citing milestones such as the abolition of slavery, the women’s suffrage movement, and the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. He also reiterated that federal judges must continue to decide cases according to their oaths, impartially and fairly.
“These national accomplishments,” Roberts wrote, “illustrate that the responsibilities for living up to the promises of the Declaration rest on all three branches of our government as well as on each successive generation of Americans.” He also stressed that federal judges “must continue to decide the cases before us according to our oath, doing equal right to the poor and to the rich, and performing all of our duties faithfully and impartially under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Most Important Cases to Watch in 2026
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court will take on a slate of complex and potentially landmark cases over the next few months. Some of the most important things to watch include:
Presidential Removal Power
The authority of President Trump to terminate agency officials has been a hot button issue all term. In January, the Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Cook, which revolves around the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
In August 2025, President Trump issued a removal letter to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook, alleging she had made false statements on mortgage applications prior to her appointment. Cook challenged the removal, arguing that it violated the Federal Reserve Act. Under the statute, the President can remove a governor only “for cause,” which has traditionally been interpreted to mean misconduct or failure to perform duties while in office. Cook also alleged that she was denied due process because she received no meaningful notice or opportunity to respond before being removed.
A U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking Cook’s removal, finding she had a strong likelihood of success on her statutory and due process claims. After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to allow Cook’s removal immediately. The Court denied that emergency request without detailed explanation, allowing Cook to remain on the Federal Reserve Board until full briefing and oral argument on the legal issues this month.
Birthright Citizenship
Several cases related to immigration policy are set for early 2026. Most notably, the Court will examine challenges to a controversial executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
In Trump v. Barbara, civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging the Executive Order, alleging that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, federal citizenship statute, and other laws. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction that barred the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order against a class of babies born on or after February 20, 2025, who are or would be denied U.S. citizenship by Trump’s order.
The Trump Administration appealed. In its petition for review, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was “adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens.”
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the following question: “Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.” A decision upholding the policy would upend more than 150 years of constitutional interpretation, dramatically reshaping immigration law and civil rights.
Transgender Athletes
In the arena of controversial social issues, the Court has been asked to address whether state bans on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports violate Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination. West Virginia v. B.P.J. challenges West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” a law banning transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that West Virginia’s ban violates Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, because it discriminates against students based on sex.
The Court has agreed to consider two questions: 1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Second Amendment Gun Rights
The Supreme Court will consider two important Second Amendment cases in 2026. The first, United States v. Hemani, challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that bars gun possession by anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the law is unconstitutional as applied to Hemani because he was not under the influence of a controlled substance while possessing a firearm. However, other courts of appeal have reached different outcomes when faced with similar cases.
Notably, the Trump Administration has urged the Court to uphold the federal gun regulation in this context, arguing the case presents “an important Second Amendment issue that affects hundreds of prosecutions every year: whether the government may disarm individuals who habitually use unlawful drugs but are not necessarily under the influence while possessing a firearm.” The justices granted certiorari and have agreed to decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani.
The other Second Amendment case, Wolford v. Lopez, challenges a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for someone who has a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun on private property without the property owner’s affirmative permission.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, concluding that a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent. The challengers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that “[i]n holding the Second Amendment does not apply to private property open to the public, the Ninth Circuit’s decision renders illusory the right to carry in public.”
The justices granted certiorari and have agreed to consider the following question: “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.”
What’s Next?
Several of the Supreme Court’s 2026 decisions have the potential to be historic. However, it will likely be a long wait, as the more contentious rulings tend to be released at end of the term, which comes in June/July.
