Alright, we finally made it to the end of the Supreme Court's 2025 term decisions (sort of*), just in time for the Court to kick off its 2026 term, which it did Monday, hearing oral argument in two cases — Suncor Energy Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County and Johnson v. United States Congress.
It will be a few months before we see the Court's decisions in those matters, but in the meantime, we've got the skinny on the Court's end-of-term decisions from June, which, in typical fashion, include some of the most notable (and split) rulings.
All three are 6-3 decisions, with two reflecting the standard "party-line" split and one involving Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority, joined by the Court's liberal contingent and Justice Brett Kavanaugh...mostly. The issues tackled here include birthright citizenship, campaign spending, and transgender athletics.
*I say "sort of," because the Court actually issued five additional rulings in August and September — we'll tackle those in a separate installment. For now:
The June 30, 2026 Cases
Date: June 30, 2026
Author: John Roberts
Split: 6-3*
Dissent: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
Appeal From: 1st Circuit
*Kavanaugh agreed with the result based on federal law but dissented from the constitutional holding, which had five votes.
Basic Facts:
The question presented is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order provides that children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States—and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which uses the same language. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449. Several parents filed suit, some in the name of their children, arguing that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA. The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and preliminarily enjoined the Order’s enforcement. This Court granted certiorari before judgment.
Issue:
Are children born in the United States citizens at birth even when their parents are here illegally or temporarily?
Holding: Affirmed.
Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Skinny: Born here? Your parents' immigration status doesn't cancel your birthright.
SEE: Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Strikes Down Trump Executive Order in 5-4 Vote
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
Date: June 30, 2026
Author: Brett Kavanaugh
Split: 6-3
Dissent: Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson
Appeal From: 6th Circuit
Basic Facts:
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) restricts a political party’s spending on campaign activities in coordination with candidates. 52 U. S. C. §30116(d). In 2001, this Court upheld those coordinated-expenditure limits as consistent with the First Amendment. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431 (Colorado II). Petitioners—a group of candidates and political party committees—challenged FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits under the First Amendment, arguing that Colorado II is no longer good law. In light of Colorado II, the en banc U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected petitioners’ First Amendment challenge. This Court granted certiorari.
Issue:
Can federal law limit how much political parties spend on campaign activities planned in coordination with their candidates?
Holding: Reversed and remanded.
FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.
Skinny: Political parties can put their money where their candidates’ mouths are — even when they plan the message together.
SEE: SCOTUS Hands GOP Major Win, Strikes Down Limits on Party Spending With Candidates
West Virginia v. B. P. J. (with Little v. Hecox)
Date: June 30, 2026
Author: Brett Kavanaugh
Split: 6-3
Dissent: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Appeal From: 4th Circuit and 9th Circuit
Basic Facts:
The question before the Court in these cases is whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, schools may maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams for biological females, i.e., may schools determine eligibility for female sports based on biological sex? In the past six years, 27 States have enacted laws that maintain female sports for biological females.
In 2021, West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits male students from playing on female teams. W. Va. Code Ann. §§18–2–25d(c)(2)–(3). The law specifies that sex is determined by biology. §§18–2–25d(a)(4), (b)(1). The legislature expressly found that prohibiting biological male participation in female sports is necessary to promote equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. See §§18–2–25d(a)(1), (3), (5). Respondent B. P. J., who identifies as female, is a biological male as defined by §§18–2–25d(a)(4), (b)(1). B. P. J. has sought to participate on the girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams at school. B. P. J. sued West Virginia and relevant officials for alleged violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U. S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment for the State on both claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed on the Title IX issue and remanded for further fact-finding on the Equal Protection Clause claim. 98 F. 4th 542.
In 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits male students from participating on female teams. Idaho Code Ann. §33–6203. The Idaho law states that sex is determined by biology. Ibid. And the law declares that “separate sex-specific teams furthers efforts to promote sex equality . . . by providing opportunities for female athletes.” §33–6202(12). It also recognizes the physical differences between biological males and biological females. §§33–6202(1)–(5), (7), (8), (10)–(12). The law further found that the benefit “that natural testosterone provides to male athletes is not diminished through the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.” §33–6202(11). Respondent Hecox, who identifies as female, is a biological male as defined by §33–6203. Hecox competed for the women’s club soccer team, and tried out for the women’s Division I track and cross-country teams. Shortly after Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, Hecox sued Idaho and relevant officials, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The U. S. District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 104 F. 4th 1061.
Issue:
Can states reserve women’s and girls’ school sports teams for biological females without violating Title IX or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?
Holding: Reversed and remanded.
1. Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.
2. West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females.
Skinny: Keeping girls’ sports for girls isn’t moving the goalposts — it’s keeping the playing field fair.
SEE: Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Title IX Win for Women's Sports
