When the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes after its winter recess, the justices will step back into some of the most consequential constitutional disputes in years, touching on citizenship, gun rights, transgender protections and the independence of the Federal Reserve.
The cases set for consideration raise fundamental questions about the scope of presidential power, the reach of the Second Amendment, the meaning of equal protection under the Constitution and the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
One of the most closely watched disputes centers on birthright citizenship and whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil. The case arises from a January executive order issued by President Donald Trump that seeks to narrow eligibility for citizenship at birth, limiting it to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
A nationwide group of affected children challenged the order in federal court, arguing it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. A judge in New Hampshire blocked the order last summer, preventing it from taking effect. The constitutional text at the heart of the dispute states that anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen. For more than a century, courts have interpreted that language broadly, following an 1898 Supreme Court decision that extended citizenship regardless of parental immigration status, with limited exceptions.
The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to political allegiance rather than mere presence, a reading that would exclude children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the country. Supporters of the challenge counter that historical debates surrounding the amendment show lawmakers understood the language to apply broadly and deliberately chose that outcome. Even if the justices were to question earlier interpretations, the administration would still need to overcome similar statutory language in federal immigration law, a hurdle legal analysts describe as significant.
Another case before the court asks whether federal law may bar habitual drug users from owning firearms. The dispute stems from conflicting rulings among federal appeals courts on a statute that prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing guns. While one appeals court struck the law down as unconstitutional, others have upheld it in whole or in part.
The federal government argues the restriction aligns with historical limits placed on individuals deemed dangerous, pointing to early American laws that imposed severe consequences on habitual drunkards. The defendant in the case maintains that those historical examples only support bans on carrying weapons while intoxicated, not a broader prohibition on possession. A ruling could clarify how lower courts should apply the Supreme Court’s recent history-based framework for evaluating gun laws.
The court will also hear arguments in a case that could redefine the balance between the presidency and independent federal agencies. At issue is whether President Trump may remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor over alleged mortgage fraud that predates her service at the central bank. A lower court blocked the firing, prompting the administration to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
Unlike other challenges to agency independence, the administration is not asking the justices to eliminate protections for Federal Reserve officials outright. Instead, it argues the president acted within his authority because the dismissal was based on misconduct. The governor disputes the allegations and warns that allowing removal based on unproven claims would undermine the Fed’s independence and destabilize financial markets.
Finally, the court will hear two cases involving state laws that bar transgender athletes from participating in female-designated sports. Appeals from Idaho and West Virginia challenge lower court rulings that found such bans violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection and federal civil rights law.
The states argue the laws are justified by biological differences and the goal of preserving fairness and safety in women’s sports. The athletes challenging the bans contend the laws discriminate based on gender identity and should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. The outcome could determine whether transgender status qualifies for elevated constitutional protection, an issue the court has previously avoided deciding directly.
Together, the cases mark a pivotal moment for the Supreme Court, with decisions likely to shape constitutional law, federal power and civil rights for years to come.
