President Donald Trump may have gotten what he most wanted from the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled on July 1, 2024 – by a 6-3 vote – that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution by, essentially, being president. Trump named three justices to the high court during his first term in office – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – and all three ruled in his favor in Trump v. United States (Barrett in part). The latest raft of major SCOTUS rulings, due next month, may continue to largely meet with Trump’s approval, or at least conservative priorities, but by no means is the court’s October 2025 term, as it’s officially known, likely to be a slam dunk for the right.
Here is a rundown of what we can expect from the U.S. Supreme Court by late June:
Gun rights (Wolford v. Lopez)
In this Case the Court is being asked to review a decision by——- in favor of the rights of —– , a private citizen to take a gun onto a neighbor’s house without any government permission to do so—-
Hawaii has a history and tradition of restrictive laws concerning weapons, dating to the reign of King Kamehameha III in the 1830s. In keeping with that, the state in 2023 decided that gun owners there must acquire permission to take a gun onto private property, which SCOTUS has chosen to review. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Buren (2022), the court came down on the side of gun owners, creating the so-called Bruen test, intended to measure if gun laws are in keeping with the country’s “history and tradition,” which will likely be relevant here. An incremental ruling from the SCOTUS is expected in the Hawaii case.
Transgender athletes (Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., consolidated)
Two cases are giving the court the opportunity to decide whether banning transgender girls from participating in girls’ school sports is unconstitutional, expanding the issue into the realm of civil rights law. During arguments earlier this year, a majority of justices seemed inclined to support these bans, which would also narrow the scope of the Title IX ban on discrimination in schools. Even the court’s liberal justices noted that the plaintiffs may be better off pursuing individual legal challenges at this point, although one of them has since stopped trying to participate in sports at her school.
Campaign finance (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission)
In this case the Cort is being asked to determine if the Republican Senatorial Committee can get access to lower broadcast rates for their political advertisements.
The court fundamentally changed the elections landscape in 2010 with its Citizens United ruling, ruling that corporate mega-spending on elections was free speech. Ironically, the court is now considering whether to allow political parties to spend more in coordination with candidates, which could dilute the impact of Citizens United. But ultimately, the decision here is likely to benefit the Republican Party, largely because super PACs would now have access to the lower rates for broadcast advertising time that have long been benefiting Democrats. A sweeping ruling is expected, with conservative justices making the difference.
Immigration (Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe, consolidated)
Does the court have the right to review refugees’ Temporary Protected Status (TPS)? Should the justices decide it doesn’t, Trump’s desire to remove TPS for thousands of Haitians and Syrians in this country could ultimately impact 1.3 million people living here, from dozens of countries. His administration argues that TPS has essentially become permanent for refugees from places like Haiti and Syria, long wracked by various humanitarian crises. He has already shut down virtually all asylum cases. But if the SCOTUS gives Trump what he wants on TPS, U.S. cities that have taken in scores of these refugees would be disrupted.
Birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara)
In this case the Court is being asked to approve a ban on the constitutional right of birthright citizenship The case is being brought by Barbara ?????
This case may be the most vital of the term to Trump, who actually showed up for the court’s arguments, which was unprecedented. It’s also the case he’s least likely to win. At stake here is the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that virtually anyone born in the U.S. is an American citizen. A ruling in Trump’s favor would strip millions of people living here of that status. The president’s lawyers described today’s America as a new world because of something they called “birth tourism.” The skeptical chief justice responded, “New world, same constitution.”
Take Action
- Everytown for Gun Safety is one of the nation’s largest gun-control advocacy organizations – www.everytown.org; 3 Columbus Circle, New York, NY 10019, or info@everytown.org.
- The American Civil Liberties Union is a major legal advocacy group that’s actively involved in transgender athlete cases and broader LGBTQ rights – www.aclu.org; 125 Broad St., 18th floor, New York, NY 10004; 212-549-2500; info@aclu.org.
- The Brennan Center for Justice is highly influential in campaign reform and election law – www.brennancenter.org; 120 Broadway, Suite 1750, New York, NY 10271; 646-292-8310; info@brennancenter.org.
- The American Immigration Council focuses on immigration policy, legal advocacy and public education – www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org; 1331 G St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005; 202-507-7500; info@immcouncil.org.
- The National Immigration Law Center is tasked with providing legal protections for immigrants, including those involving citizenship issues – www.nilc.org; 3450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 108-62, Los Angeles, CA 90010; 213-639-3900; nilc@nilc.org.