July 1, 2026 – For the October 2025 Term that concluded yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted 74 cases, heard 58 arguments, and rendered 67 decisions. Already scheduled for the next term that begins in October are 21 cases.

Major Decisions in June

West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (June 30, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 9-0, holding that Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX. In addition, the court held 6-3 that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females. Both cases raised the issue of whether a transgender girl or woman may play on the female sports team.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (June 30, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 6-3, holding that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which restricts a political party’s spending on campaign activities in coordination with candidates, violates the First Amendment with those political-party coordinated-expenditure limits. The holding reverses the Supreme Court’s 5-4 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Commission, 533 U. S. 431 (2001) (Colorado II), which allowed the limits.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

Trump v. Barbara (June 30, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Supreme Court affirmed 5-4, holding that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions.

Watson v. Republican National Committee (June 29, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 5-4, holding that the federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter. Nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined as to all but Parts II – C – 2 and III.

Chatrie v. United States (June 29, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 6-3, holding that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired – by a geofence warrant – Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part I, and in which BARRETT, J., joined as to Parts II – B, II – C – 1, and II – C – 2. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Trump v. Cook (June 29, 2026)

On application for stay on the interim docket, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that Lisa Cook may stay on the Federal Reserve Board while litigation continues about her firing by President Donald Trump.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH and JACKSON, JJ., filed concurring opinions. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Trump v. Slaughter (June 29, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the Supreme Court reversed 6-3 holding that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, allowing President Donald Trump to remove without cause Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee. The decision explicitly overrules Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part III – B. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

Monsanto v. Durnell (June 25, 2026)

On appeal from the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, the Supreme Court reversed 7-2, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts John Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.

Wolford v. Lopez (June 25, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 6-3, holding that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to Part II – B. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe (June 23, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 6-3, holding that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), which contains an express cause of action against someone who “subjects” another to torture, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability. The case arose from individuals who claimed the Chinese Government persecuted them because of their religious beliefs, and that Cisco Systems, Inc. enabled that persecution by developing surveillance technology that allowed China to identify and apprehend them.

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined as to Parts I – III and V.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacíon Cimex, S.A. (Cuba) (June 23, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 6-3, holding that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. Plaintiffs who sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities under the Act need not also satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. Exxon Mobil Corp.’s lawsuit may proceed against the Cuban government for reimbursement for the oil refinery, terminals, packaging plants, and more than a hundred service stations confiscated by Cuba in 1960 after Fidel Castro seized power.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (June 23, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 9-0, holding that the proper baseline for measuring “just compensation” following a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the country’s history of tax sales. The Court also rejected the argument of Michael Pung, personal representative of the estate of Timothy Scott Pung, that the County violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause by failing to compensate him for his property’s fair market value.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined except as to Part II – B. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined except as to n. 1.

United States v. Hemani (June 18, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court affirmed 9-0 that the government’s prosecution of Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined.

Hunter v. United States (June 18, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 8-1, holding that an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice – meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The agreement required Munson Hunter III to take prescribed medications for mental health, which he challenged as infringing on his “fundamental due process liberty interest in being free of unwanted mental health medication.”

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction Inc. (June 11, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that to determine whether an omission of a claim in a bankruptcy case was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission. In this case, the Fifth Circuit erred by artificially narrowing its inquiry to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim. While the bankruptcy case remained open, Thomas Keathley was involved in a car accident in Mississippi with a driver employed by Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. Keathley retained a personal-injury attorney and informed his bankruptcy counsel that he intended to sue Buddy Ayers Construction. Neither Keathley nor his bankruptcy counsel disclosed the potential personal-injury claim, an asset in the bankruptcy estate, to the Bankruptcy Court.

JACKSON, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion.