The Supreme Court’s new term begins this week and the session includes a case brought by the sitting vice president of the United States, JD Vance. It also includes cases that could mean major changes to presidential power, whether transgender athletes can play women’s sports and how congressional maps are drawn.
Last term, which ended in June, was relatively less controversial than previous years with no landmark cases like the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade. Plus, the court has decided a record-low number of cases compared to previous decades. However, the court changed in ways that may be overlooked by much of the public.
Supreme Court experts say the recent term was marked by a rise of the emergency, or shadow, docket as the Trump administration increased its use of emergency filings in response to federal court decisions. This has forced the court to stray from normal procedure and issue emergency decisions without detailed opinions.
This term, the justices are set to hear oral arguments on several high profile cases, including battles with President Donald Trump over his desire to increase executive power. Others continue the debate over whether transgender athletes should be able to play on women’s sports teams.
There are cases that focus on First Amendment rights like the freedom of speech in therapy and freedom of religion in prison. Other cases could change the face of politics, including how political candidates raise money and whether race still needs to be considered when drawing congressional districts.
While most of the newsiest decisions will be handed down in May or June, the Deseret News will follow oral arguments for several cases over the coming months.
Here’s a glimpse at what to expect, including previous coverage of the cases, and stay tuned for more about the high court.
Social issues
Chiles v. Salazar
This case stems from a challenge to a Colorado law that bans state-licensed mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors. Kaley Chiles challenged the law and argued it violated her First Amendment free speech and exercise rights. Colorado argues that the ban regulates treatments professionals can provide, since conversion therapy has been found to be “unsafe and ineffective.” Chiles, however, said she doesn’t try to convert patients but instead tries to help them with “stated desires and objectives” for being in counseling, which can sometimes include individuals who want to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions,” to change sexual behaviors or have “harmony with one’s physical body.”
Date expected: Oral arguments on Tuesday, Oct. 7.
Little v. Hecox
What SCOTUSblog anticipates to be one of the “most closely watched” cases this upcoming term, the case concerns transgender students’ participation in women’s sports. In 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act which ultimately barred transgender girls and women from playing in public school sports — elementary to college. Lindsay Hecox, a student athlete at Boise State University and a high school student named as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit arguing that their constitutional rights, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, were being threatened. The court’s decision isn’t expected to come before 2026.
Date expected: Oral argument date not yet scheduled.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
The second case involving transgender athletes in women’s sports, originating from West Virginia and backed by religious groups, was put on the schedule just last month. The state requested the high court to weigh in after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction blocking the Save Women’s Sports Act, a state law enacted in 2021 that says athletes in any public secondary school or state institution of higher education can only participate on sports teams that align with their biological sex. Like the Idaho case, a transgender student, Becky Pepper-Jackson, filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, arguing that federal civil rights law, Title IX, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, prohibit the state from blocking transgender athletes from participating in female sports.
Date expected: Oral argument date not yet scheduled.
Landor v. Louisiana
This case is an appeal from a former Louisiana inmate, Damon Landor, who said prison guards violated his religious rights by cutting his dreadlocks. As a Rastafarian, dreadlocks hold spiritual significance and when prison guards forcibly shaved them, Landor said his First Amendment rights were violated. Landor is backed by the Trump administration in the case, and it could hinge on the 2020 unanimous decision over a similar religious issue with Muslim men and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Date expected: Oral arguments Monday, Nov. 10.
Campaigns and elections
Louisiana v. Callais
This case involves a congressional map adopted in 2022 by the Louisiana Legislature. The map featured a single Black-majority district out of six, leading Black voters to challenge it in federal court, arguing that it diluted their votes, which make up about one-third of the state’s population.
In response, the legislature drew up a new map containing a second majority-Black district, but the plaintiffs in the case said it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by emphasizing race in its creation. The Supreme Court is ultimately being asked the following:
- Did Louisiana use race too much in drawing districts?
- If so, did the law survive constitutional scrutiny?
- Did the lower court use the right legal test?
- Or should courts not even be involved in this case?
Date expected: Oral arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 15.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC
This case was originally brought forward by Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator, challenging federal limits on what political parties can spend on campaigns. Vance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee argue that a campaign finance restriction limiting how much money political party committees can spend on an individual candidate is a violation of the First Amendment. The Democratic National Committee filed a motion to intervene when the Federal Election Commission sided with the Republican challengers once the Trump administration took over. Democrats say lifting the restrictions opens up a financial loophole for money to funnel directly to one candidate. It’s an issue that has been debated for years, most notably under the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling.
Date expected: Oral argument date not yet scheduled.
Trump and executive expansion
Learning Resources v. Trump
This case is related to Trump’s sweeping tariff implementation and whether the president has the power to impose them when he used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency. Critics say Trump was wrong in bypassing congressional approval for his tariff plan since the Constitution says power over tariffs is a duty of Congress. Businesses and states joined together to say Congress should have to approve the tariffs. The justices agreed to quickly hear arguments in the first week of November.
Date expected: Oral arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5.
Trump v. Lisa Cook
In August, Trump published a letter firing Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, from her position, accusing her of making fraudulent statements in a 2021 mortgage agreement. Cook took the firing to court, and both a lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia paused Trump’s firing of the Fed governor, prompting Trump’s legal team to take their case to the Supreme Court. Numerous experts questioned the legality of Trump’s actions, pointing out that the allegations against Cook were unsubstantiated and pertained to conduct prior to her time at the Fed. Cook can remain in office until the legal question is settled.
Date expected: Oral arguments are expected to be heard in January 2026.
Trump v. Slaughter
The court agreed to hear a case that could expand Trump’s ability to change personnel working for independent agencies after Rebecca Slaughter, one of the Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, was fired by the president in March. Slaughter’s firing went back and forth in the courts and in September, the justices said it would allow Trump to proceed with her firing. The justices will take on a broader case related to Slaughter, potentially overturning a 90-year precedent that has previously prevented presidents from firing independent agency employees without cause and over political differences. The court has already allowed Trump to proceed with high-profile firings, which could signal a win is coming for the president in this case.
Date expected: Oral arguments are expected to be heard in December 2025