Supreme Court Opens New Term With Major Cases on Executive Power, Elections, Speech, Guns, and Faith
by Emmitt Barry, with reporting from Washington D.C. Bureau Staff
(Worthy News) – The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2025-2026 term Monday with one of its most consequential dockets in years — a lineup that will test the limits of presidential power, reshape key civil rights laws, and weigh fundamental questions about faith, speech, guns, and life itself.
Executive Power: The “Trump Term” Begins
At the heart of the new term lies a series of disputes tied directly to President Donald J. Trump’s agenda, prompting legal analysts to label this session the “Trump Term.”
The first, scheduled for November 5, challenges Trump’s use of emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs — including penalties aimed at countries tied to fentanyl trafficking. Lower courts ruled the move exceeded statutory authority, setting the stage for a defining judgment on how far a president can go without congressional approval.
Another major case revisits the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which limited a president’s ability to fire officials from independent agencies. The Court will now review that doctrine through Trump’s dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter and a separate dispute over his removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Both cases could dramatically redefine the separation of powers between the executive branch and federal regulators.
Faith and Free Speech Under Fire
The justices will soon hear two high-stakes cases involving religious liberty and free speech.
On October 7, a Christian counselor will argue that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors violates her First Amendment rights, contending that the law criminalizes speech and counseling rooted in biblical convictions. A ruling in her favor could topple similar laws in more than two dozen states.
Later this fall, the Court will take up a challenge from a New Jersey pro-life ministry resisting state subpoenas for its donor lists. The group claims that the investigation infringes upon its speech and privacy rights and constitutes political intimidation. Together, the cases test the limits of government regulation of faith-based expression.
Elections, Maps, and Money
Few issues carry more political weight this term than the Louisiana redistricting case, set for re-argument on October 15. The Court will decide whether drawing a second majority-Black congressional district — to satisfy the Voting Rights Act — unlawfully elevates race over neutral criteria under the Equal Protection Clause. The decision could reshape congressional maps nationwide and directly affect control of the U.S. House in 2026.
Meanwhile, another case challenges federal limits on coordination between political parties and candidates. Republicans argue those restrictions violate the First Amendment and muzzle political advocacy. A ruling for the challengers could loosen decades-old campaign-finance rules and expand political spending freedom.
Guns, Property, and Public Safety
Gun rights are again before the Court in Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s sweeping restriction that bans firearms on private property unless the owner explicitly consents. Opponents argue that the rule effectively eliminates public carry, while Hawaii defends it as a means of protecting property owners’ rights to exclude weapons.
The case builds on the Court’s landmark 2022 Bruen decision, which required modern gun laws to align with the nation’s “history and tradition.” A ruling against Hawaii could reverberate across states seeking tighter gun controls post-Bruen.
Gender, Sports, and Civil Rights
The justices will also address the explosive debate over transgender participation in women’s athletics. Two consolidated cases from Idaho and West Virginia ask whether state laws limiting girls’ sports to biological females violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.
Supporters say the measures preserve fairness in competition; opponents claim they amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The Court’s ruling could become the defining precedent on how gender identity and federal civil rights laws interact in schools and sports.
Life, Death, and Mental Capacity
From matters of gender to questions of life itself, the Court will hear an Alabama death penalty case involving a man whose borderline IQ could exempt him from execution. The ruling will clarify how lower courts weigh conflicting test results and determine whether mental disability shields inmates under the Eighth Amendment.
War, Contractors, and Accountability
Another closely watched case, Hencely v. Fluor Corp., will be argued on November 3. It asks whether private defense contractors can be sued for terrorist attacks that occur during military operations abroad. The lawsuit stems from a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan that injured a U.S. soldier. A decision against the contractor could narrow wartime liability protections that have long been shared by the federal government and its private partners.
A Monumental Term Ahead
While the justices declined to take up Missouri’s “gun sanctuary” case and several smaller petitions on their opening day, the Court’s term is already shaping up as one of the most influential in recent memory.
By next summer, the justices will have ruled on cases that could redefine presidential authority, reshape electoral maps, and set new constitutional benchmarks for faith, speech, and freedom in America.
đź’ˇ Did you know? One of the best ways you can support Worthy News is by simply leaving a comment and sharing this article.
📢 Social media algorithms push content further when there’s more engagement — so every 👍 like, 💬 comment, and 🔄 share helps more people discover the truth. 🙌
Latest Worthy News
If you are interested in articles produced by Worthy News, please check out our FREE sydication service available to churches or online Christian ministries. To find out more, visit Worthy Plugins.