Supreme Court Set to Rule This Week on Fed Firing, Birthright Citizenship, Trans Athletes, and Mail Ballots

Eight Cases. One Week. Enormous Stakes.

The Supreme Court, by custom, finishes its term before July 4. As of Monday, June 29, eight cases remain undecided, according to the Associated Press. The justices are expected to issue opinions in batches this week, with the next public session scheduled for today.

The cases cover presidential removal power, birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in school sports, mail ballot deadlines, campaign finance limits, geofence warrants, and two gun rights disputes. Collectively, they will set the boundaries of federal authority in ways that outlast any single administration.

Can Trump Fire the Fed Governor?

The most structurally significant financial case involves Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. Trump sought her removal, citing allegations of mortgage fraud. Cook has denied those allegations and called them a pretext for firing her over monetary policy disagreements.

No president has ever fired a Fed governor in the agency's 112-year history, according to the Associated Press. The Federal Reserve Act requires removal only "for cause," a term Congress left undefined. During arguments in January, the justices signaled skepticism toward Trump's authority to oust Cook, in contrast to their posture on the separate FTC case.

The FTC case is different. During December arguments, the conservative justices appeared ready to uphold Trump's firing of Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences. The Court has already allowed that firing to take effect while the case proceeds, a strong signal of how they will rule. The administration, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, has urged the Court to overturn the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which has protected independent agency heads from at-will removal for 91 years.

If the Court guts Humphrey's Executor, the Cook case becomes harder. Does that same logic extend to a Fed governor, or does the Fed's unique monetary independence place it in a different constitutional category? The Court appeared less willing to go that far, according to the AP's reporting on the January arguments.

Birthright Citizenship: The Administration Expects to Lose

Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in office seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or on temporary visas. Lower courts have uniformly blocked it. During April arguments, the justices gave Trump's lawyers a skeptical reception, and Trump himself has publicly predicted defeat.

"If they rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will be even worse, if that's possible," Trump wrote on Truth Social in April, as reported by Newsweek.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told Fox News that there "should be a 9-0 ruling" in the administration's favor, arguing that birthright citizenship for children of those with no lawful permanent status is constitutionally unsupported. The Supreme Court upheld the current interpretation in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark, and Congress codified it in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952, according to the LA Times.

The strongest version of the administration's argument is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment was never meant to include children of people who owe primary allegiance to a foreign government. The historical record and Supreme Court precedent cut the other way, and the justices' questions in April suggested they are not persuaded. The most favorable outcome Trump could realistically get, according to the LA Times, is a ruling that rejects the executive order on statutory grounds alone, which would leave room for Congress to act.

Transgender Athletes: Half the States Are Watching

The Court is considering challenges to laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit transgender girls and women from competing on female public school and college sports teams. Roughly half the states have enacted similar laws, according to the AP.

This case has clear conservative policy alignment in the remaining docket. The argument in favor of these laws is straightforward: male puberty produces physiological advantages in strength, speed, and endurance that do not fully reverse with hormone therapy. Protecting female athletic competition requires sex-based categories rooted in biology.

Opponents argue the laws are discriminatory and that blanket bans are a blunt instrument that harms individuals. The underlying question of whether states can protect female sports categories at all is one where the Court's conservative majority signaled during January arguments that it is likely to side with the states.

Mail Ballots and Campaign Finance

Two election-related cases remain. One involves state laws that allow a grace period for mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward. The other involves limits on how much political party committees can spend coordinating with their candidates.

The LA Times reports that Republicans are likely to prevail in both. A ruling ending grace-period ballot counting would align election administration with a straightforward rule: the deadline is the deadline. Critics argue that mail delivery times are outside voters' control and that late-arriving ballots often represent legitimate votes.

What Comes Next

The Court's conservative majority has so far been mostly receptive to Trump's immigration crackdown and has shown genuine sympathy for a broader theory of executive power. It has also rejected Trump's assertion of the power to unilaterally impose wide-ranging tariffs and appears ready to reject birthright citizenship by executive order.

Columbia Law School professor Gillian Metzger told Newsweek that the broader trend is a court reinforcing executive power, even "against the backdrop of a president who was exercising pretty aggressive executive power." The question this week is where the limits are and whether the Federal Reserve's unique institutional independence places it beyond even an expanded presidential removal power.

If the Court rules that Humphrey's Executor is overruled but the Fed is exempt, it will have drawn a constitutional line that no president has ever tested. That is the specific unresolved legal question that will determine whether central bank independence has any enforceable constitutional weight going forward.