Justices will tackle birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots, asylum policy, and weed killer, among other topics.
The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments on major constitutional and legal issues over the next several months.
The justices will tackle, among other topics, the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship policy, arrival dates for mail-in ballots, asylum policy, and Monsanto’s liability for the effects of its glyphosate-based weed killer known as Roundup.
Here are the top cases to watch and the arguments involved:
| Birthright Citizenship |
| Mail-In Ballots |
| Gun Rights for Drug Users |
| Asylum at US–Mexico Border |
| FCC Penalties |
| Monsanto’s Weed Killer |
| Geofencing |
Birthright Citizenship
One of the term’s most consequential cases arises from a class-action lawsuit alleging that the president violated the 14th Amendment by withholding citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. The case, Trump v. Barbara, is set for oral argument on April 1.
The clause of the 14th Amendment at issue guarantees citizenship to people “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Trump, on his first day back in office, issued an executive order that calls for officials to deny citizenship documents to children if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States, and their fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents.
In 2025, multiple lower courts issued rulings blocking implementation of the executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The courts said that it violated the amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
In the 1898 case, the Supreme Court said the amendment guaranteed citizenship for a Chinese man whose parents were permanently domiciled in the United States but were not U.S. citizens.
Lower courts have said that the decision’s reasoning lent itself to guaranteeing citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The administration disagreed, arguing that the decision and the 14th Amendment indicated parents should have some kind of allegiance to the United States.
Attorneys also told the Supreme Court that even if Trump’s order complied with the 14th Amendment, it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law uses the amendment’s language to guarantee citizenship for people “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The attorneys said that law was understood in the 20th century to include the children of illegal immigrants. The Justice Department said instead that the law’s meaning “depends on what the Citizenship Clause actually means, not what Congress thought it meant.”
Mail-In Ballots
In Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), the Supreme Court will consider whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
This case has its origins in 2020, when Mississippi amended its state law to authorize counting mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by that day. In 2024, the RNC and others alleged Mississippi violated a federal law that defines “Election Day” as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.”
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, meanwhile, argued that the Elections Clause of the Constitution—which broadly allows states to choose the “manner” of their elections—protected the law.
After the RNC’s initial suit in 2024, a district court ruled in favor of Mississippi. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned that ruling, prohibiting Mississippi from accepting late-received ballots.
The Supreme Court accepted Mississippi’s appeal and scheduled oral arguments for March 23.
Gun Rights for Drug Users
Ali Danial Hemani was charged in 2023 with violating a federal law that prohibited firearm possession by individuals who unlawfully use controlled substances.
Hemani, who admitted to smoking marijuana approximately every other day, challenged his indictment, arguing that the wording of the statute was too vague and violated the Second Amendment.
In the case U.S. v. Hemani, the Supreme Court is set to reexamine its 2022 precedent in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. There, the court said laws restricting the right to bear arms are constitutional only when they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The government has argued that the law at issue in Hemani’s case is “analogous to founding-era laws restricting the rights of drunkards.” Hemani’s attorneys disputed that comparison, arguing that “habitual drunkard” laws targeted people who regularly abused alcohol, not people who regularly drugs or alcohol, such as Hemani.
Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for March 2.
Asylum at US–Mexico Border
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on March 24 over the Obama administration’s policy of turning away asylum-seekers before they cross the southern border.
Although the Biden administration rescinded that policy, the Supreme Court is reviewing the results of prior litigation with consequences for future border enforcement. The main question in the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, is whether migrants have officially arrived in the United States if they stop on the Mexican side of the border.
A group of 13 asylum-seekers and an immigrants’ rights organization sued in 2017. They alleged the policy violated federal laws allowing migrants to apply for asylum and to be inspected by an immigration officer if they arrive in the country.
One of the laws states that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” can apply for asylum regardless of his or her legal status.
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the plain meaning of arrival meant physical presence. It is asking the justices to reverse a 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In a 2–1 decision, it ruled that noncitizens are considered to have arrived if they encounter a border official. The court said, among other things, that one of the relevant laws distinguished between physical presence and arrival, suggesting that some arrivals might not be physically present.
FCC Penalties
The Supreme Court will hear two cases on April 21 involving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposing fines on wireless carriers for sharing customer location data without consent.
In 2024, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on major telco firms, including $57 million on AT&T and nearly $47 million on Verizon.
The companies argued that the fines, which were investigated, decided, and ordered in-house at the FCC, violate their right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
Their cases—FCC v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC—are building off of a landmark decision from 2024. In that case, the Supreme Court said the Securities and Exchange Commission had to provide a jury trial if it wanted to impose civil penalties.
For the FCC, federal law allows the agency to issue a forfeiture order with a penalty. In response, the company can either pay the penalty and seek review in an appeals court, or it may refuse to pay, prompting the agency to potentially refer the issue for prosecution in a jury trial.
Because Verizon chose the first option, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said its rights weren’t violated. Rather, it passed on its opportunity for exercising those rights. AT&T similarly paid the penalty, but the Fifth Circuit said the prospect of a future trial wasn’t enough.
Monsanto’s Weed Killer
The Supreme Court is set to wade into years-long litigation over Monsanto’s popular, glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and its purported effect of increasing cancer risk.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly concluded that a cancer warning wasn’t necessary, more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country have sought to hold the company liable.
One of those plaintiffs was St. Louis resident John Durnell, who alleged he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure to Roundup. A jury unanimously awarded him $1.25 million and said that Monsanto failed to follow state law requiring companies to warn users about those types of risks.
Monsanto told the Supreme Court that the case was deeply flawed due to a legal doctrine known as preemption. That doctrine generally says that federal laws take precedence over state laws when the two conflict.
In Durnell’s case, Monsanto said a law known as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act took precedence over Missouri’s warning law. That federal law generally empowers the EPA to regulate pesticides. Monsanto argued that because the EPA had already refused to require a warning label, the state’s requirement would be exceeding its authority.
Durnell disputed the idea that his case created a conflict between state and federal law. Among his many arguments was the idea that Monsanto can’t rely on the EPA’s view that glyphosate, a chemical in Roundup, didn’t cause cancer. That’s because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the EPA lacked substantial evidence for its position.
Oral argument is set for April 27.
Geofencing
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on April 27 over a geofence warrant used in the investigation of an armed bank robbery in Virginia.
Law enforcement uses those types of warrants to obtain cell phone data from a service provider. In this case, known as Chatrie v. United States, authorities served Google with a geofence warrant for anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the bank and within one hour of the crime.
After Google turned over the initial list of devices, law enforcement asked—without an additional warrant—for more, including de-anonymized data on three devices. One of those devices belonged to Okello Chatrie, who was convicted using the evidence from that warrant.
Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the authorities’ actions violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and generally requires warrants, in multiple ways. One of those was police not obtaining a warrant before unmasking him as associated with the device.
The Justice Department has defended the search and warrant. “Individuals generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed to a third party and then conveyed by the third party to the government,” it said.
