As the U.S. Supreme Court begins its 2025-26 term, two pending legal showdowns are poised to define whether President Trump’s sweeping use of executive power has meaningful legal limits. At stake are not only the constitutionality of broad presidential actions—ranging from trade policy to citizenship rights—but also the balance of power between the branches of government at a time of intense political polarization. These cases come as the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and dominated by a conservative majority, faces growing scrutiny for its deference to the executive and its willingness to weigh in on historically unprecedented claims of authority.

Tariffs by Presidential Fiat: A Test of Trade Law and Congressional Power

The first major test centers on President Trump’s unilateral imposition of wide-ranging tariffs on foreign imports—including steel, aluminum, lumber, and furniture—without Congressional approval. The administration justifies its actions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, arguing that this law grants the president the authority to regulate importation during national emergencies. Trump has maintained that the tariffs are essential to addressing trade deficits and stemming threats such as the inflow of drugs across borders, declaring tariffs to be “the most beautiful word in the dictionary” and making them central to his economic policy.

According to the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, delaying a Supreme Court ruling or reversing the tariffs could create a fiscal crisis, potentially exposing the government to $1 trillion in liabilities and causing “significant disruption” to the U.S. economy. Small businesses and several states, however, have sued, arguing that these measures represent the “largest peacetime tax increase in American history,” and that tariffs—historically the purview of Congress, as mandated by the Constitution—cannot be imposed by executive order alone.

Lower federal courts have already ruled the tariffs illegal but allowed them to remain in place pending appeal, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s review. A decision is expected after oral arguments on November 5, 2025. Legal analysts say a ruling in Trump’s favor would dramatically expand the scope of presidential authority over international economic policy, enabling future presidents to bypass Congress whenever an emergency (broadly defined) is cited.

Notably, recent years have seen the Supreme Court block ambitious regulatory measures by previous Democratic administrations on the grounds that Congress had not clearly authorized such actions—raising questions about consistency in applying the major questions doctrine. The outcome of the tariffs case could determine who truly holds the purse strings when it comes to taxation and trade: the president or Congress.

Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Battle Reignited

The second high-profile case set to reach the high court revolves around the fate of birthright citizenship as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Traditionally, anyone born on U.S. soil—regardless of parents’ immigration status—is considered a natural-born citizen, with rare exceptions for children of diplomats. President Trump, however, has sought to reinterpret this provision, aiming to exclude children born to undocumented immigrants, “birth tourists,” and temporary visitors.

Trump Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 primarily to grant citizenship to freed slaves, was never intended to shield children of those who lack legal presence in the United States. Several lower court judges across the country have rejected this interpretation, blocking changes to the citizenship rule for now. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the question in early 2026, with a final ruling likely by June—timed just months before a contentious presidential election.

The birthright citizenship case is not only a test of constitutional text and historical intent but also a flashpoint in America’s broader debates on immigration, national identity, and the limits of executive power. Should the Supreme Court uphold Trump’s restrictions, it would mark a fundamental shift in long-standing interpretations of constitutional rights and could provoke a global debate, given that only a handful of countries grant unconditional birthright citizenship.

Supreme Court’s Conservative Tilt and Its Legacy

The upcoming term is unfolding against a backdrop of Supreme Court decisions that have largely favored Trump’s positions and the broader interests of an assertive executive. Earlier in 2025, the Court ruled that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts—a decision described by President Trump as a “BIG WIN” and by critics as removing one of the few checks on presidential abuses. Legal scholars from top U.S. law schools have voiced deep concerns about the Court’s willingness to set aside traditional constraints on executive power, warning that this could set dangerous precedents for future presidents of any party.

Chief Justice Roberts, once seen as an institutional conservative and a bulwark for judicial restraint, has been criticized for appearing unwilling to impose limits on President Trump’s ambitions. Adam Winkler of UCLA Law suggests the Court may be “saving its credibility for when it really counts”—implying that this term might finally represent that time.

What’s at Stake? The Balance of Powers and American Democracy

The cases on tariffs and birthright citizenship are not isolated skirmishes but part of a broader contest over the nature of American democracy in the 21st century. If President Trump prevails, it would create a powerful precedent for future presidents to unilaterally reshape economic, immigration, and civil rights policy, diminishing Congress’s traditional role as a check on the executive branch.

At the same time, the Court’s approach could have international ramifications. The use of tariffs as a policy weapon has already unsettled global trade relations, sparked retaliatory measures from foreign governments, and contributed to volatility in global markets. Any fundamental change to birthright citizenship could affect millions of U.S.-born children and provoke heated legal and diplomatic responses from allies and migrant-sending countries alike.

As the Supreme Court hears arguments in these landmark disputes, many in the legal and political establishments agree with University of Chicago law professor William Baude: “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies, and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more about the true contours of presidential power.”

Looking Ahead: The Supreme Court’s Defining Term

With continued legal challenges and historic decisions on the docket, the Supreme Court’s new term will not only shape the remainder of President Trump’s tenure, but also set critical precedents that could reverberate for generations. As the justices weigh their decisions, the nation—and the world—will be watching to see if there remain constitutional checks on the authority of the most powerful office in the land.