The US Supreme Court begins its new term amid extraordinary political and legal circumstances, as former President Donald Trump—now reinstated in the White House—faces judicial scrutiny over the scope and limits of presidential power. The Court’s decisions in the coming months will not just affect the Trump administration, but may fundamentally realign the relationship between the executive branch, Congress, the judiciary, and American society at large.

Executive Power in the Crosshairs

Since his return to office, President Trump has acted assertively, rolling out policies through executive action, reducing federal headcounts, and seeking tighter control over agencies that have traditionally been insulated from direct presidential influence. These efforts have sparked a flurry of lawsuits, several of which are rapidly moving toward the highest court in the country.

The flashpoint for the current legal battles is Trump’s approach to law and order, especially his bid to commandeer state National Guard units for deployment to cities experiencing protests or surges in crime. Federal judges, such as Judge Karin Immergut in Oregon, have pushed back, warning that such tactics risk eroding the boundaries between civilian and military authority—a cornerstone of American constitutional law.

“This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law,” Judge Immergut wrote in a prominent opinion. Her ruling, now under appellate review, could soon come before the Supreme Court on its so-called “shadow docket”—procedures for fast-tracking emergency legal decisions without full briefing or oral arguments.

The Shadow Docket: Transparency Concerns

The Court’s increasing use of its shadow docket has drawn criticism across the political spectrum. Orders from the shadow docket are typically terse, sometimes just a sentence long, and often lack comprehensive legal reasoning. This practice, while enabling swift interventions, raises concerns about transparency and accountability. Senator Cory Booker warned earlier this year, “All Americans should be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s growing reliance on its shadow docket…This shields the Court from accountability.”

Despite these criticisms, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has frequently allowed Trump’s policies to proceed while legal challenges unfold—foreshadowing a term where executive power is certain to take center stage.

A Docket Overflowing With High-Stakes Issues

The Court is poised to confront issues of presidential power in several forms. Scheduled cases include:

• Agency Independence: Whether Congress can shield certain independent agencies from direct presidential oversight, balancing the need for professional expertise against presidential accountability.
• Federal Reserve Control: The legality of Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, which could give presidents unprecedented influence over America’s central banking system and, by extension, the global economy.
• Tariffs and Economic Policy: Challenges to Trump’s unilateral imposition of tariffs on foreign imports, an issue with serious ramifications for both domestic industries and international trade relationships.
• Federal Spending and Workforce: Litigation over sharp reductions in federal spending and attempts to more freely hire and fire government employees.
• Immigration and Birthright Citizenship: The Court may soon review proposals to curtail automatic citizenship for those born on American soil—an unprecedented move that would upend longstanding US policy.

Observers say this term could see the Court resolving how, and under what constraints, the President wields power on critical issues from national security to economic policy. According to Professor Jennifer Nou of the University of Chicago Law School, “The coming cases will test the highest political and economic priorities of the Trump administration, whether tariffs or birthright citizenship.”

The Major Questions Doctrine and Executive Authority

The justices’ approach may be influenced by the “major questions doctrine,” a principle amplified during recent terms. This doctrine holds that Congress must provide clear, specific authority for the President to make sweeping policy changes. It was invoked in recent, high-profile decisions striking down Biden-era student loan forgiveness and environmental initiatives. Whether the Court applies this constraint even-handedly—regardless of the incumbent’s party—will be a crucial test of its independence.

Beyond the Presidency: Social and Political Flashpoints

While presidential powers dominate the docket, the Supreme Court will also rule on a number of deeply contentious issues. These include:

• Conversion Therapy and Free Speech: The constitutionality of state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth, pitting free speech protection against the state’s power to regulate harmful practices.
• Transgender Rights in Sports: The legality of state bans on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports—a hot-button issue that has energized both conservative and progressive activists.
• Mail-in Ballots: Challenges to laws permitting mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day, a crucial issue in the administration of closely contested elections.
• Voting Rights and Racial Representation: Cases challenging provisions of the Voting Rights Act that require states to ensure minority representation in congressional districts, echoing long-standing civil rights battles.
• Campaign Finance and Coordination: Efforts by the Republican Party to overturn limitations on coordination between candidates and parties in campaign spending.

A Conservative Court Changing America’s Legal Landscape

The 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to overturn longstanding precedents. Recent years have seen landmark rulings shifting policy on abortion, environmental regulation, and affirmative action. Public trust in the institution has grown more polarized: a 2024 Pew Research Center poll found partisan splits sharper than ever, with Republicans approving of the Court’s direction, and Democrats increasingly skeptical.

The impact of this term’s rulings will be felt far beyond the current news cycle. By the term’s end in June 2025, the judiciary’s role as both check and enabler of presidential action will be sharply defined. As the nation looks on, the Supreme Court’s decisions could chart a new course for American democracy in an era of intensifying political division and constitutional contention.