- The U.S. Supreme Court's 2026 term features pivotal cases on birthright citizenship, mail-in ballot deadlines and asylum policy.
- A key case challenges a Trump-era executive order denying citizenship documents to children of certain non-citizens.
- The Court will reexamine the legality of counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
- Other significant cases involve gun rights for marijuana users, FCC fines and liability for the herbicide Roundup.
- These decisions could reshape American law on immigration, elections and regulatory power.
As the nation moves deeper into 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court has positioned itself at the center of the country’s most contentious legal and political debates. The justices are preparing to hear arguments on a docket brimming with cases that challenge foundational policies on citizenship, election integrity and border security. These forthcoming decisions promise not only to settle immediate legal disputes but also to redefine the contours of American law and governance for years to come.
The battle over birthright
One of the most consequential cases, Trump v. Barbara, directly challenges the long-held interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Scheduled for April 1, the case stems from a class-action lawsuit against an executive order issued by President Donald Trump upon his return to office. The order directed officials to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present and their fathers were not citizens or permanent residents. Lower courts have blocked the order, citing the 1898 precedent United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to a man born to Chinese parents legally residing in the country. The administration argues that historical context requires parents to have “allegiance” to the United States, a standard it claims unauthorized immigrants do not meet. This case revisits a principle dating to the post-Civil War era, questioning who is considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.
Election deadlines and legal lines
The integrity of mail-in voting, a practice massively expanded during the 2020 pandemic, faces another judicial test in Watson v. Republican National Committee. At issue is a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if received up to five days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by that day. The RNC argues this violates federal law setting a single national “Election Day,” while Mississippi contends the Constitution’s Elections Clause grants states broad power to set the “manner” of their elections. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals having blocked the law, the Supreme Court’s review, set for March 23, will provide crucial guidance on state flexibility in administering federal elections, a matter of perennial debate since the disputed 2000 election.
Border policy and the definition of “arrival”
Even policies no longer in effect can have lasting legal repercussions, as seen in Noem v. Al Otro Lado. The Court, hearing arguments on March 24, will review the Obama-era “turnback” policy for asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Although rescinded by the Biden administration, the case centers on whether migrants can be considered to have “arrived” in the United States—and thus be eligible to apply for asylum—if they present themselves to an official on the Mexican side of the border. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the asylum-seekers, creating a split with other courts and setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify a key procedural definition that will impact future border enforcement strategies.
Guns, drugs and historical tradition
The Court continues to apply its landmark 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun laws to be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In U.S. v. Hemani, argued on March 2, the justices will examine a federal law prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances. The government defends the law as analogous to historical restrictions on “drunkards,” while the defendant argues the statute is unconstitutionally vague and that no historical precedent supports disarming someone who uses marijuana regularly but is not intoxicated while possessing a firearm. This case exemplifies the ongoing judicial struggle to translate 18th-century principles to 21st-century controversies.
Corporate accountability and regulatory power
The term also features major business and regulatory disputes. The Court will wade into the protracted litigation over Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, weighing whether federal pesticide law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims. In separate cases against the FCC, telecom giants AT&T and Verizon will argue that the agency’s in-house imposition of hundreds of millions in fines for sharing customer data violates their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Additionally, in Chatrie v. United States, the justices will scrutinize the constitutionality of “geofence” warrants, which allow police to obtain location data for all devices in a specific area during a set time, testing Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age.
A term of lasting consequence
The Supreme Court’s 2026 term represents more than a routine judicial calendar; it is a series of rulings that will directly shape the American social and political landscape. From determining the meaning of birthright citizenship—a concept woven into the nation’s identity since the 1860s—to setting rules for modern elections and digital privacy, the Court is once again the final arbiter of the nation’s most divisive questions. The outcomes will resonate far beyond the marble walls of the courtroom, influencing immigration policy, electoral processes and the balance of power between individuals, corporations and the state for a generation.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
