Updated Jun 29, 2026
/Loopring Shutters Ethereum DEX, Blames Lack of Meaningful Adoption/Kraken and Maple Launch Onchain Warehouse Facility for Crypto-Backed Institutional Loans/Freight Shipping Costs Surge to Post-Red Sea Highs as Companies Race Ahead of Trump Tariffs/Luigi Mangione Drops Psychiatric Defense in UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Case/Mustafa Ali Retains TNA International Championship at Slammiversary as Uhaa Nation Makes Debut/XRP Faces Rising Risk of Drop Below $1 as On-Chain Data Shows Whale Accumulation/Loopring Shutters Ethereum DEX, Blames Lack of Meaningful Adoption/Kraken and Maple Launch Onchain Warehouse Facility for Crypto-Backed Institutional Loans/Freight Shipping Costs Surge to Post-Red Sea Highs as Companies Race Ahead of Trump Tariffs/Luigi Mangione Drops Psychiatric Defense in UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Case/Mustafa Ali Retains TNA International Championship at Slammiversary as Uhaa Nation Makes Debut/XRP Faces Rising Risk of Drop Below $1 as On-Chain Data Shows Whale Accumulation

Supreme Court's Final Week to Test Presidential Power Over Citizenship, Fed Independence and More

The Supreme Court enters the final week of its term with rulings outstanding on eight cases, three of which directly test the boundaries of executive authority — including President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and whether he can remove commissioners at independent federal agencies, a question with direct implications for the Federal Reserve's operational independence.

By Priya Nair2 min read
Share

The Supreme Court enters the final week of its term with rulings outstanding on eight cases, three of which directly test the boundaries of executive authority — including President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and whether he can remove commissioners at independent federal agencies, a question with direct implications for the Federal Reserve's operational independence.

Birthright Citizenship Case Carries Broadest Stakes

Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship is widely viewed as the most consequential pending decision. Immigration advocacy groups and constitutional scholars have told Axios that the 14th Amendment and established legal precedent protect the right to citizenship for children born in the United States. Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, an immigration and criminal justice advocacy group, warned the outcome of gutting those protections would be "mass chaos at every hospital in the United States." Schulte added that a patchwork of citizenship rules would "fundamentally alter the day-to-day lives of tens of millions of Americans." Key justices appeared skeptical of the government's case at oral arguments earlier this year, though no ruling has yet been issued.

Fed Independence Hangs on Firing-Power Cases

The court is separately weighing whether the president can remove commissioners at independent agencies over policy disagreements. The case involving a central bank official named Cook drew apparent skepticism from the justices, with Cook's attorneys arguing that a ruling for Trump would undermine the Federal Reserve's independence. The court appeared more receptive, however, to the administration's position in a parallel case involving Federal Trade Commission members — a stance that would overturn a precedent protecting independent agency commissioners from politically motivated firings that dates back roughly 90 years. Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center, said Trump has pursued "an extremely aggressive and expansive view of presidential authority, under which he can ignore or rewrite laws that Congress has passed and even rewrite the Constitution itself."

Election Law, Trans Athlete Bans, and Geofencing Round Out the Term

Three additional sets of decisions remain. The court must rule on a Mississippi law permitting election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day; striking it down could affect similar grace-period laws in other states. A separate election-law case challenges limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates — limits the court upheld in 2001. On transgender policy, the justices have pending cases involving athlete bans in Idaho and West Virginia, with conservative justices appearing inclined to uphold the restrictions, which would effectively establish that Title IX does not require transgender athletes be permitted to compete consistent with their gender identity. Finally, the court is weighing a Fourth Amendment challenge to a geofence warrant used in a robbery conviction; the Brookings Institution has assessed the court is unlikely to issue a categorical ruling either permitting or banning such warrants.

Key takeaways

Frequently asked

Why is the birthright citizenship case considered so important?

It is widely viewed as the most consequential pending decision because advocates and scholars say the 14th Amendment and legal precedent protect citizenship for children born in the U.S., and Todd Schulte of FWD.us warned that gutting those protections would cause 'mass chaos at every hospital in the United States.'

How could the cases affect the Federal Reserve?

The court is weighing whether the president can remove commissioners at independent agencies over policy disagreements; in the case involving a central bank official named Cook, attorneys argued a ruling for Trump would undermine the Federal Reserve's independence.

What does the transgender athlete case involve?

The justices have pending cases over athlete bans in Idaho and West Virginia, and conservative justices appeared inclined to uphold the restrictions, which would establish that Title IX does not require transgender athletes be permitted to compete consistent with their gender identity.

What is at stake in the Mississippi election law case?

The court must rule on a Mississippi law allowing officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day, and striking it down could affect similar grace-period laws in other states.

What is the geofence warrant case about?

It is a Fourth Amendment challenge to a geofence warrant used in a robbery conviction, and the Brookings Institution has assessed the court is unlikely to issue a categorical ruling either permitting or banning such warrants.