Updates About Supreme Court Rulings

Recently, The U.S. Supreme Court completed its 2025-2026 term. Throughout the term, the Court issued several landmark decisions in relation to birthright citizenship, elections, and executive authority. Below are short summaries of four of the most significant rulings.

Birthright Citizenship – Trump v. Barbara

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order that attempted to end birthright citizenship. The court then agreed, 5-4, that the constitution’s fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett held the majority opinion. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in striking down the executive order, but did not rule it unconstitutional. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented to both decisions.

Federal Reserve Independence – Trump v. Cook

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court blocked President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, holding that Federal Reserve governors remain protected from removal without cause. The ruling preserved the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence from direct presidential control. The Justices in the majority opinion were Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Jackson, and Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Alito all dissented.

Executive Powers – Trump v. Slaughter

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, ruling that the President does have the power to remove independent agency officials who exercise significant executive power. The decision overturned a previous court case that previously protected the officials from removal without cause. This decision does not apply to the Federal Reserve as outlined in Trump v. Cook. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett formed the majority, while Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

Mail-in Ballots – Watson v. Republican National Committee

The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that mail-in ballots that are cast and postmarked by the day of the election will be counted even if received after Election Day has passed. The Republican National Committee had started the suit against Mississippi’s Republican Secretary of State, Michael Watson, to try and block the Mississippi law that permits counting late mail-in ballots. The Justices with the ruling opinion were Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. The dissenters were Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

After the ruling was announced, President Trump said he was disappointed with the decision. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson issued a statement supporting the decision, stating that it upheld voting rights and helped to ensure more citizens are able to vote.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refused to hear Kim Davis v. David Ermold, where Davis had hoped the Court would overturn a lower court’s decision awarding damages to a same sex couple that Davis refused to issue a marriage license to while working as a court clerk. Davis also requested that the Court overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that established marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Among those celebrating the decision was Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is the state’s first openly LGBTQ+ individual elected to a statewide office. In a statement released shortly after the Court announced they would not be taking on the case, Nessel expressed relief but gave a warning: this is only a battle won, and to secure lasting victory against other efforts to overturn Obergefell, Michigan must change the state Constitution to protect marriage equality.

Attorney General Dana Nessel is part of a 24-state coalition that has successfully secured a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) from terminating nearly $11 billion in federal public health grants — cuts that include more than $379 million originally promised to Michigan. Affected programs include vaccination funding for children, infectious disease prevention, mental health care for those with severe conditions, and opioid treatment for vulnerable populations. The TRO halts those cuts for now, ensuring continued funding while the legal challenge moves forward in federal court.

Members of the coalition, including attorney generals from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, argue the terminations were made without proper notice or legal justification.

Specifically, the lawsuit claims DHHS acted unlawfully by ending the grants under the justification that the COVID-19 pandemic has ended — despite Congress not tying the funding to the pandemic’s status. According to state officials, this lack of funding is already disrupting services and creating confusion for health departments and organizations that rely on these dollars.