Carole Levine July 1, 2026
June 30th marked the final opinion day for this session of the Supreme Court. As a veteran “Court Watcher” and an ardent follower of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) cases and decisions, this was a session of both hope and anguish in terms of decisions. There were expected disappointments as well as unexpected surprises in the Court’s decisions and opinions that upheld years of laws and those that did away with what had been set law for many, many years. This session of SCOTUS was a roller coaster with ups and downs, highs and lows.
The final seven opinions (two cases on trans athletes were combined or there would be eight cases), presented over the last two days, offer a sample of how this SCOTUS session went. While some might say that the justices held the “best” for last, these final cases represent the range of issues the Court heard over the course of 2025-26. They cover the waterfront of issues, and opinions and the opinions were not always what I had hoped for. What should be understood, however, in this is that these opinions are not necessarily the end of the road. In many cases, the issue was returned to a lower court for further consideration. This means that it is not yet “settled law.” Congress and state legislatures can take up these issues and pass new laws to deal with them. This is where you and I, “the people,” have a role to play in urging those whom we elect to represent us to take actions on issues we care about. Knowing your elected officials and contacting them to share your views has never been more important.
There is one more point of importance that has clearly emerged in this session of the Supreme Court. In many cases, the Justices were divided in their opinions, 5 to 4, or often 6 to 3. The “groupings” of Justices was not often varied and usually ideologically based (conservative to liberal). For me, this raises some questions as to the Justices’ basis for their reasoning. We look to the Courts (all of them) to be the non-political balance in our three-pronged government (Congress, Administration and Legal/Courts). I am concerned that we have a SCOTUS that might not be that neutral deliberative body, but that has now become a highly political entity. This, for me, could call into question many of this Court’s decisions.
What follows is a short summary of the final seven SCOTUS cases this term. This will give you a sense of the diversity of the cases and the opinions.
Watson v. RNC: Issue: Mail In Ballots Decided: 5 to 4.
Summary: It is OK for mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by election day and received within 5 days of election day. Validates the use of mail-in ballots.
Chatrie v. US: Issue: What Constitutes a Search? Decided: 6 to 3
Summary: This is also a “right to privacy” case in which cell phone data to target the location of Chatrie at a specific time and place was deemed a search, requiring a geofence warrant. The government said “yes” because you already share this information with Google. The Court said “no,” indicating that this is a question of expectation of privacy, not one of who owns the data.
Trump v. Slaughter: Issue: Presidential Firing of Members of Nominally Independent Agencies Decided 6-3
Summary: This case concerns President Trumps summary firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without providing any “for cause” justifications. Slaughter challenged and initially won reinstatement. SCOTUS reversed this in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. This decision overturned the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor’s Rule that limited the power of the President to fire certain government officials and agreed that the President could, indeed, fire Rebecca Slaughter.
Trump v. Cook: Issue: Presidential Firing of Lisa Cook Decided 5-4
Summary: In this case of Presidential firing of a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Court held that Cook may remain in her job while her challenge to Trump’s firing moves forward. Concern was expressed by the entire Court that this was the first removal in the Federal Reserve’s 111-year history.
Little v. Hecox & West Virginia v. B.P.J.: Issue: Transgender Athletes Participation in Women & Girls Sports Decided 6-3
Summary: This was a consolidation of the two cases that focused on the eligibility and participation of trans athletes in high school sports for women and girls. The Court found that eligibility can be determined by based on biological sex and that Virginia had not violated Title IX in doing so and that this case did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Expect more cases on this issue in the future as there are cases moving through the 2nd Circuit on other aspects of this issue.
N.R.S.C. v. F.E.C.: Issue: Campaign Finance Reform Decided 6-3
Summary: This decision by the Court says that limits on parties coordinated expenditures on how much they can spend in coordination with their candidates violate the First Amendment. The June 30, 2026 ruling effectively allows political parties to make unlimited coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates. The dissent argued that lifting these restrictions enables large donors to circumvent individual contribution limits, inviting a return to corruption.
Trump v. Barbara Issue: Birthright Citizenship Decided 6-3
Summary: In this anxiously awaited decision, the Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order doing away with birthright citizenship. The decision was 194 pages long! Those affirming indicated that the Order would violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and conflicts with federal laws. It could not be upheld unless and until Congress enacts new legislation. Until then to quote from the decision: “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.”
These final cases, as well as the many other of the total of 58 that were heard by the Justices this session are now the law of the land… until new cases cause those laws to change. Our history teaches us that this will happen and that each of us can influence those outcomes. Courts Matter Illinois encourages everyone to become a “Court Junky” and follow the cases and outcomes that are heard by the Supreme Court and that are also decided less formally on its Shadow Docket. Our laws will be better understood and our nation will be better informed and our citizenship stronger when this happens.
