In recent months, the Supreme Court has seen a string of high-profile cases reach its benches. The Supreme Court is often thrust into the spotlight when these cases, typically dealing with recent political controversies, are decided, and for good reason.
The Supreme Court is “the last line of defense to protect your constitutional rights,” said Ms. Mazzini-Chin, one of Greeley’s APUSH teachers. It “is your place to be able to, as a citizen, ask for an evaluation of your constitutional principles,” she added. The judiciary also serves as a way to keep the government in check. “It’s really the branch that protects us from overreach of the executive or runaway legislature,” added Mr. May, another APUSH teacher at Greeley.
As a result, the highest court often finds itself on the receiving end of heavy criticism or effusive praise for its work. However, behind most decisions lie intricate and detailed reasoning and facts.
Learning Resources v. Trump
Over a year ago, President Trump unveiled a hallmark of his economic policy: Liberation Day tariffs. The president invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify adding a 10% baseline tariff on most imports, with higher levies on products from some countries, including China, Mexico, and Canada. According to the SCOTUS blog, the law authorizes the President to impose tariffs only in times of unusual or extraordinary threats. “In imposing those tariffs, Trump cited large trade deficits as an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States,’” the blog noted.
Numerous lawsuits were filed by businesses against these tariffs, including by Learning Resources, Inc., a toy company. The company sued because of the higher costs and taxes it faced due to the tariffs, as many of the toys it sells are imported from China. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, decided in their favor. In representing all sides of the political spectrum, Supreme Court justices wrote that the President lacked the proper justification to impose tariffs under the IEEPA. In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices relied on the “major questions” doctrine, or the idea that “if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly.” However, they decided Congress did not do so.
The striking down of these tariffs holds major implications because, according to TIME, roughly $130 billion had been raised by them as of December 2025. The ruling has set the stage for companies that paid tariffs under the IEEPA to receive refunds from the government, but consumers who might have paid higher prices as a result have no way to get that money back. Additionally, the ruling did not strike down all tariffs, as many others were imposed under different laws.
Chiles v. Salazar
Beyond the realm of trade and executive authority, the Supreme Court also dealt with a First Amendment dispute in Chiles v. Salazar. The Court issued a landmark ruling surrounding state bans on conversion therapy at the end of March, holding significance for the regulation of professional speech. In 2019, Colorado enacted a ban on conversion therapy for minors, a process “that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” per CBS. Despite the practice being medically discredited, Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, challenged the law. She claimed that the ban prevented her and other counselors from working with clients according to their preferences, limiting free speech. Lower courts disagreed, ruling that the law regulated professional conduct rather than free speech,
However, in an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court agreed with Chiles. In the majority opinion, justices Neil Gorsuch and Elina Kagan wrote that the law regulated one’s speech, favoring one side over the other. “The problem with Colorado’s law isn’t that it is based on the content of therapists’ speech, but that it isn’t neutral as to the viewpoint they’re expressing,” CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Valdeck explained.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the sole dissenting justice in the case, read her dissent from the bench, a rare action that justices “usually reserve for the cases they believe are most significant or they feel the court got wrong,” per CNN. She argued that the Constitution does not prevent the regulation of medical treatment just because it comes via speech instead of through medical equipment. However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court did not declare the law unconstitutional. Instead, it sent the case back down to a lower court and directed it to apply the most stringent levels of scrutiny. As a result, it will likely then be struck down.
Trump v. Barbara
Another element of President Trump’s governing agenda has recently captured both the nation and the Supreme Court’s attention: his aim to remove birthright citizenship. The case Trump v. Barbara is centered on Executive Order 14160, which, according to Jurist, directed agencies to deny citizenship to those “whose mothers were either in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, and whose fathers were neither US citizens nor lawful permanent residents.”
Yet, the Fourteenth Amendment provides citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This principle has been used to provide citizenship to those born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. But now, the government has claimed that the “subject to the jurisdiction above” part does not apply to children of those without status or in the U.S. temporarily, with President Trump arguing that this is the proper interpretation of the amendment. However, during arguments on April 1, multiple justices appeared skeptical of the President’s claims. According to The Guardian, justices Roberts, Kagan, and Jackson all described the government’s case as relying on a questionable basis and shaky reasoning.
On the subject of birthright citizenship, Ms. Mazzini-Chin mentioned that “[it] is something that was a long time in the making and is being challenged currently.” Both Mr. May and Ms. Mazzini-Chin emphasized how, even with the Fourteenth Amendment, groups such as Indigenous Americans and Asian Americans were denied citizenship. The definition of race has never been static, and as it has changed, so have ideas surrounding citizenship. In the next few months, another different idea could be applied, affecting millions.
Louisiana v. Callais
Another case dealing with a historical advancement, Louisiana v. Callais, centered around the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case stemmed from a dispute in 2021 around Louisiana’s congressional map in which Black voters sued the state, alleging the map diluted their power. Using Section 2 of the VRA, which outlaws racial discrimination in the voting process, a court agreed and “the state legislature redrew the map to add a new Black-majority congressional district,” according to the Brennan Center. However, White voters then sued over these new maps, saying they were an illegal race-based gerrymander.
The Supreme Court first heard the case in March 2025. However, instead of releasing a ruling over the summer, the court held rearguments in October, a rare step typically reserved for important and controversial cases. The primary issue of this case was whether accounting for race when redrawing a map found to be racially discriminatory is constitutional.
On April 29, the Supreme Court ruled against Louisiana’s redrawn maps and severely restricted the application of Section 2 when it comes to gerrymandered maps. In a 6-3 majority opinion, the court ruled that by intentionally creating a district where Black Americans would form the majority to remedy racial discrimination, the map unconstitutionally considered race. It revised the three-part test used to prove racial discrimination, which “is [now] significantly harder to pass and designed to require plaintiffs to prove intentional racial discrimination – an extremely difficult burden,” per The Guardian. Justices in the majority opinion, including Justice Alito, cited examples like the “vast social change throughout the country and particularly in the South; a correlation between race and party preference, [and] partisan-gerrymandering claims being ‘repackaged’ as racial-gerrymandering claims,” as examples of the evolution of current circumstances that require this new framework, according to the National Constitution Center.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal-leaning justices dissented, with Justice Kagan reading her dissent from the bench. She heavily disagreed with the majority opinion, writing that, “under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.” Voting rights activists were very critical of the decision, calling it a “betrayal of democracy,” while a White House spokesperson praised it. The ruling has already led to significant impacts on the upcoming midterm elections. According to Newsweek, “multiple Republican-leaning states have ramped up redistricting efforts following the Supreme Court ruling,” including Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi, some of which have already passed new maps. These efforts have targeted seats currently held by Democrats, with Democrats in other states (including New York) also raising the possibility of redrawing their maps.
What’s next?
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled in Trump v. Barbara, with a decision expected by June. With the far-reaching implications of this case regarding citizenship and identity, now is the time to start paying attention.
“Just kind of keep an eye out,” Ms. Mazzini-Chin mentioned, as many major opinions are issued during the summer in June and July. “Keep an eye out for them, and just keep reading the paper,” added Mr. May. As demonstrated with these cases, Supreme Court cases hold severe implications for future elections and the basic rights that one can hold. Mr. May stated it best: “It’s important to recognize, too, that some court cases that don’t necessarily seem connected to a right that you’re concerned about, actually do have a connection” to you. From the prices paid at the store to the maps determining where one’s vote counts, the Supreme Court influences the political, social, and economic landscape that students will soon inherit, hitting far closer to home than one may think.
