Three U.S. Supreme Court Cases to Watch

Thanks for joining us this Saturday morning. There’s frequent chatter about the latest policy disputes within and between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. But every year, we like to offer brief commentary on some of the momentous decisions soon expected from the third branch of government, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the coming months, the high court will weigh in on legal disputes related to some of the most contentious issues in American society. Below, we outline three of the biggest cases to watch. 

***

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (tariffs)

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Nov. 5 on a question that stands to be the most impactful of the year: whether the president has sole authority to impose tariffs.

During his 2024 campaign, President Donald Trump repeatedly called “tariffs” the most beautiful word in the dictionary. He signaled his intent to massively disrupt international trade in pursuit of leverage for his domestic and foreign policy goals. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, it’s indisputable that he’s followed through with vigor.

Several states and many small businesses have argued to multiple federal courts that President Trump does not have the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. The arguments hinge on two key items: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the “major questions doctrine.”

First, the IEEPA. This law grants the president authority to regulate international transactions. It grew out of a similar measure enacted in 1917, during World War I. There are complexities here, but generally the IEEPA contemplates a president declaring an emergency and then using his emergency powers to impose sanctions and other trade consequences on states, terrorist groups, and other adversaries. Presidents have used their emergency declaration authority under the statute liberally: According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2025, there have been “77 national emergencies invoking IEEPA, 46 of which are ongoing.”

Plaintiffs argue that the IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose sweeping tariffs impacting just about every country in the world and every facet of the American economy. Indeed, the word “tariff” does not appear in the IEEPA. The law does, however, authorize the president to “regulate importation or exportation.” The Trump administration argues this verbiage confers tariff authority on the president as a “traditional and commonplace way to regulate imports.”

Second, the major questions doctrine, which is fairly new. The Congressional Research Service offers the most succinct summary: “Under the major questions doctrine, the Supreme Court has rejected agency claims of regulatory authority when (1) the underlying claim of authority concerns an issue of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ and (2) Congress has not clearly empowered the agency with authority over the issue.”

In other words, if the executive branch attempts to do something that has “vast” economic and political significance, then the judiciary will typically invalidate the action unless Congress explicitly authorized it.

Plaintiffs assert that Trump’s tariffs do indeed have “vast” economic and political significance; therefore, Congress must explicitly authorize them. Because Congress did not do so, the tariffs are illegal. The Trump administration argues that the doctrine shouldn’t apply here because tariffs have national security and foreign policy implications.

Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs and against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court has fast-tracked arguments for this case. If the high court upholds lower court rulings, President Trump’s signature domestic and foreign policy initiative will be in purgatory unless and until Congress authorizes his actions.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. (transgender participation in sports)

In this case, the high court may settle an issue that’s simmered in American culture for the past five years: whether it is legal to prohibit transgender youth – specifically those born male who later identify as female – from competing in girls’ sports. 

West Virginia’s law to that effect is at issue in this case, but 27 other states – including North Carolina – have passed similar laws in recent years. Proponents of the laws argue that it’s unfair, and perhaps even dangerous, for male-born youths to compete against girls. Regardless of whether they later identify as female or pursue medical interventions to change their sex, those born as males are, on average, stronger and faster than those born as females. “The people of West Virginia know that it’s unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that’s why we passed this commonsense law preserving women’s sports for women,” West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey said.

Opponents of the laws argue that transgender minors should not be categorically excluded from participating in sports teams of their chosen gender. Their suit alleges West Virginia’s law violates Title IX protections for transgender students and is discriminatory. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do – to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork and to simply have fun with their friends,” ACLU attorney Joshua Block said. “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth.”

If the high court rules for the plaintiffs, then similar laws enacted around the country, including in North Carolina, would likely be invalidated.

Louisiana/Robinson v. Callais (redistricting)

In this case, the Supreme Court may overturn decades of case law that, taken together, have created a confusing – some would say indecipherable – set of rules governing the use of racial data in redistricting.

We could write thousands of words to try to unpack all the nuance in this case. Briefly, Louisiana created one majority-black congressional district after redistricting in 2020. That map was challenged on the grounds that it diluted the black vote (Louisiana’s population is about 1/3 black, and the state has six congressional districts). 

A federal court agreed with the challengers in that case, so the Louisiana legislature enacted a new map that created two majority-black congressional districts. But then a different set of plaintiffs challenged that map, arguing mapmakers illegally considered racial data. The Supreme Court will decide whether legislators improperly considered racial data (which they were effectively forced to do by a separate court order), and in so doing, the high court may well invalidate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act altogether.

Litigation over North Carolina redistricting actually established many of the hard-to-comprehend rules governing the use of racial data when legislative Democrats were sued (and lost) over racial gerrymandering in Thornburg v. Gingles in the 1980s.

At bottom, it’s unclear exactly when lawmakers must (or must not) use racial data, and it’s also unclear what proportion of black voters lawmakers should include in so-called “VRA districts” when they feel compelled to draw them. In North Carolina, map-drawers have lost lawsuits both for including too many black voters and not enough black voters. When litigants file lawsuits seeking to overturn congressional maps (usually because they make the political calculation that a court order would result in more seats for their preferred party), they often allege racial gerrymandering and choose which argument to make – that mapmakers either included too few or too many black voters in a given district.

The Supreme Court’s decision may clarify a decades-old bugaboo for state legislatures, or add yet more complexity to the task.