WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s winning streak at the Supreme Court is about to get tested.
Until now, the court has weighed in primarily on whether Trump’s controversial policies can move forward while they’re being litigated.
Now that some of the challenges have gone through the lower courts, the justices will start deciding the ultimate fate of Trump’s policies in the new term that begins on Oct. 6.
Slightly more than half the country thinks the Supreme Court is going out of its way to avoid making a ruling against Trump that he might refuse to obey, according to a September Marquette Law School Poll released Oct. 2.
The justices will also tackle culture war issues, including whether states can ban “conversion therapy” and prevent transgender athletes from playing girls’ sports. And they’ll hear disputes over redistricting and campaign spending restrictions that could impact future elections.
But the main focus will be on Trump’s continued testing of the limits on his authority, starting with a signature initiative – the sweeping tariffs that are the centerpiece of Trump’s economic policy and a major foreign policy cudgel. That case will be heard by the court in early November.
In December, the court will consider whether Trump can remove the heads of independent agencies for any reason.
In January, the court will take up Trump’s effort to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve board. That case raises questions about whether the central bank is different from other independent agencies and what it means to remove a Fed governor “for cause.”
Other presidential priorities that justices could take up in the coming months include Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
“The big theme will be the showdown between the Supreme Court and the president, or the absence of a showdown between the Supreme Court and the president,” said Samuel Bray, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
Court may be cautious about killing Trump’s tariffs
Donald Verrilli, who served as solicitor general during the Obama administration, said the court will want to show it’s upholding the traditional checks and balances between the executive branch and the two other branches of government.
But predicting when the justices will do that is difficult to predict, he said during a public discussion of the new term at Georgetown Law School.
Trump’s tariffs could offer solid ground to enforce limits on presidential power, Verrilli said. But before taking down such a major policy initiative of Trump’s, he added, the justices will feel they need “a pretty strong case on the legal merits.”
“You can’t help but think that’s going to be hovering over the decision-making process in this case,” Verrilli said.
More: Supreme Court to decide fate of Trump’s worldwide tariffs
President Donald Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 2025.
Conservative justices expected to side with Trump on independent agencies
Court watchers expect the conservative majority to side with Trump on the issue of presidential control over independent agencies, at least for agencies other than the Federal Reserve.
For years, the high court has been chipping away at its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of preventing members of the Federal Trade Commission from being fired without cause.
More: Supreme Court to decide if it will overturn decision protecting FTC members from presidential removal
When the majority said Trump could fire for now the last Democratic member of the FTC, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that her colleagues were “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.
That’s not the only precedent the court could upend.
Not `the gospel,’ Ahead of Supreme Court term, Clarence Thomas weighs in on precedent
Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance speaks during a rally on Oct. 22, 2024, at TYR Tactical in Peoria.
Court could overturn its 2001 campaign spending restriction
The Republican Party argues that a 2001 decision limiting how much political parties can spend on advertising and other messaging in coordination with a federal candidate is no longer appropriate.
In a case initiated in part by Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator, the GOP says changes to campaign finance rules since 2001 have led to virtually unlimited spending by super Political Action Committees or PACs.
As a result, the Republican party argues, political parties have been weakened and leading donors have turned to super PACs that act as “shadow parties,” which hurts the political system.
If the court agrees, the practical implication will be that presidents who have control over their parties can exert more influence over elections, said Jennifer Nou, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
More: Supreme Court will hear major GOP challenge to campaign spending limit
People gather outside of the U.S. Supreme Court following arguments heard in Louisiana v. Callais on March 24, 2025. The Supreme Court on June 27 deferred a decision on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map, saying they want to reconsider the case after additional oral arguments which it will schedule later. The map is being challenged by non-Black voters who said it relied too heavily on race to sort voters.
Court could gut key Voting Rights Act protection for minorities
In another major election-related case, non-Black voters are challenging the two majority-Black districts in Louisiana’s congressional map.
The case – which the court took up last term but did not decide − tests the balancing act that states must strike in protecting the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states must draw a majority-minority district when that’s needed to give minority voters an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. But the Constitution’s equal protection clause limits how much race can be the predominant factor when creating districts.
More: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map
The court’s decision to rehear the case signals that the section of the Voting Rights Act that protects the ability of minorities to elect their candidates of choice could be in jeopardy.
“At stake is nothing less than the survival of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” said Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University Law School.
If the court effectively dismantles those protections, southern states would have a freer hand to redraw congressional boundaries in a way that could help the GOP keep control of the House in next year’s midterm elections.
Protestors and supporters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2019 in Washington as the justices hear three challenges from New York, Michigan and Georgia involving workers who claim they were fired because they were gay or transgender.
Bans on ‘conversion therapy’ and transgender athletes
Culture war issues will also get an airing before the court.
In one of the first cases of the term and one of the most controversial, the justices will take up a counselor’s challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ minors.
At the Trump administration’s request, the Justice Department has been given time during the oral arguments to back the counselor’s position that the ban violates her First Amendment rights by “censoring” her conversations with clients.
More: Supreme Court takes up challenge to Colorado’s ban on `conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ minors
An even bigger issue for Trump – one he campaigned on − is preventing transgender women and girls from competing on female school sports teams.
The court is reviewing Idaho’s and West Virginia’s bans on trans athletes’ participation, which are similar to prohibitions in more than half the states.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK – JUNE 08: Becky Pepper-Jackson attends the Lambda Legal Liberty Awards on June 08, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images for Lambda Legal )
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the student challenging West Virginia’s ban, takes puberty blocking medication and has, consequently, never experienced the effects of testosterone. Lindsay Hecox, a senior at Boise State University, played “no-cut” club sports because she wasn’t fast enough to make the National College Athletic Association cross-country and track teams.
They’re arguing the bans shouldn’t apply to people in situations like theirs.
More: Supreme Court to take up blockbuster case on transgender athletes joining girls’ teams
The students are the “best case” for those trying to challenge the state bans, said Alan Morrison of George Washington University Law School.
The justices could uphold the states’ bans regardless of where a person is in their transition or what their athletic ability is.
“If they rule for the states in these cases,” he said, “it’s over.”
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump’s winning streak at the Supreme Court is about to get tested
