We've finally made it to the end of the Supreme Court's 2025 term (just in time for the 2026 term to launch). All of the Court's decisions from the oral argument docket have been "Skinny-fied," but there were several stragglers this year — rulings that came after the close of the term on "emergency" applications for stay.
Because these involved high-profile cases and came with opinions attached, I figured they warrant Skinny-fication as well, though they don't as easily lend themselves to my traditional approach, but I gave it a go.
All five of these are per curiam decisions, and all but one involve splits/dissents. At issue were election integrity, the White House East Wing/ballroom, FCC ad rates, and Missouri's congressional map. So, without further ado...
The Stragglers
Date: August 24, 2026
Author: Per Curiam
Split: 6-3
Dissent: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Appeal From: 1st Circuit
Basic Facts:
The President recently issued an Executive Order regarding election integrity. A group of States sued the Government in the District of Massachusetts, contending that the Order unconstitutionally infringes on their authority to administer elections. The District Court agreed and enjoined the Government from implementing the Order. In doing so, the District Court rejected the Government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction over the States’ claims because the States lack standing to bring them. The Government has asked us to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument, that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government’s appeal is pending.
Issue:
Can states block the President’s election-related executive order based on possible future harm from its implementation?
Holding: Stay granted.
The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it. And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course.
Skinny: No harm, no foul — you can’t block an executive order over theoretical future harm.
SEE: Breaking: SCOTUS Hands Trump Big Win on Election Integrity Order Ahead of Midterms
National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States
Date: August 31, 2026
Author: Per Curiam
Split: 5-4
Dissent: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Appeal From: D.C. Circuit
Basic Facts:
In October 2025, the federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House. The first phase involved the demolition of the existing East Wing, something the government completed in December 2025. The next phase, currently ongoing, involves the construction of a new East Wing, including a below-ground military installation and an above-ground ballroom.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (Trust) filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging various aspects of the project. As part of its suit, the Trust filed a motion on March 5, 2026, seeking a preliminary injunction. The injunction the Trust sought focused not on the already-completed demolition of the old East Wing but on halting the ongoing construction of a new one.
On March 31, 2026, the district court granted the Trust’s motion and issued a preliminary injunction. As later clarified, the injunction essentially permitted the government to continue work on the new below-ground military installation but enjoined any further construction above ground, except as “strictly necessary” to protect the White House, the President, and his staff. App. to Application 231a–233a.
On April 17, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction, effectively allowing construction to proceed, while it considered the government’s appeal. On August 7, 2026, the court of appeals resolved that appeal and upheld the district court’s injunction. At the same time, the court indicated that its existing stay would expire on August 21, 2026, and the district court’s injunction would thus take effect.
Confronted with an imminent order requiring it to substantially halt its ongoing construction activities, the government filed a motion in this Court seeking a stay of the district court’s injunction pending a forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in this Court. Application 1. THE CHIEF JUSTICE issued an administrative stay to facilitate review of the government’s application and referred the matter to the Court.
Issue:
Does a preservation group’s objection to the appearance of the new White House ballroom give it grounds to sue and halt construction while the case proceeds?
Holding: Stay granted.
Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.
Skinny: Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but finding Trump’s ballroom an eyesore doesn’t give you a veto over its construction.
SEE: SCOTUS Clears Way for Trump's Ballroom, While Roberts Leads Unusual Dissent
National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown
Date: September 4, 2026
Author: Per Curiam
Split: 8-1
Dissent: Jackson
Appeal From: 4th Circuit
Basic Facts:
On March 30, 2026, the Media Bureau, a division of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), issued a “public notice” concerning the FCC’s lowest unit charge (LUC) requirements. Pursuant to those requirements, “[t]he charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign” must be set at favorable rates known as the “lowest unit charge” in the weeks leading up to primary and general elections. 47 U. S. C. §315(b)(1)(A). The notice stated that political candidates, joint fundraising committees with noncandidate members, and political parties engaged in coordinated political activity were all entitled to the LUC subject to certain conditions.
On April 29, 2026, four Democratic candidates for Congress filed an application for review with the FCC, arguing that only political candidates were entitled to the LUC and asking the full Commission to set aside the public notice as unlawful. Two months later, while their application was still pending before the Commission, the candidates filed a petition for review against the FCC and the United States in the Fourth Circuit seeking the same relief. With the LUC requirements scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2026 ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, the Fourth Circuit expedited briefing and oral argument. It also allowed the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (collectively, the party committees) to participate as intervenors. For their part, the FCC, the United States, and the party committees argued that the Fourth Circuit lacked statutory jurisdiction to consider the petition for review while the candidates’ application for review was still pending before the Commission. They also defended the notice on the merits.
On August 25, 2026, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction, granted the candidates’ petition for review, and set aside the public notice. The Fourth Circuit then denied the party committees’ motion for a stay pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari, and the mandate issued.
Issue:
Can a federal appeals court review the FCC’s campaign advertising rate policy before the full Commission finishes reviewing the challenge?
Holding: Stay granted.
Because the candidates’ application for review was pending when they filed their petition for review, the Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their challenge.
Skinny: Hold your horses, 4th Circuit — the FCC gets to finish its work before you grade it.
SEE: The Democrats Are in Great Danger of Losing One of Their Senate Seats
Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters
Date: September 25, 2026
Author: Per Curiam
Split: 6-3
Dissent: Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan
Appeal From: D.C. Circuit
Basic Facts:
Since 1986, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program has allowed federal, state, and local government agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of noncitizens applying for public benefits. For decades, it relied on records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice, and the Department of State.
Last year, the Federal Government expanded SAVE’s scope. In March 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing DHS to put new systems in place to allow state and local authorities to verify the citizenship status of registered voters and individuals registering to vote. The Executive Order also directed the Social Security Administration (SSA) to make its records available to DHS for that purpose.
Two months later, DHS launched a modified SAVE program. The modified program differed from the original in two key respects. First, it incorporated checks against additional records—including social security numbers (SSNs)—maintained by SSA. Second, it allowed state and local authorities to conduct bulk searches of multiple individuals at once.
Issue:
Is the federal government entitled to a stay allowing it to continue using the modified SAVE program while its appeal proceeds?
Holding: Stay granted.
Lest there be any doubt, section 1373(c) requires DHS to respond to inquiries from state and local agencies “seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.” Considered alongside section 1373’s “notwithstanding” clauses, section 1373(c) appears to contemplate an information-sharing regime like the modified SAVE program. In light of these provisions, this Court is likely to reverse the District Court’s holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA.
Skinny: SAVE gets saved: SCOTUS says DHS likely has Congress’s blessing to keep the citizenship checks running.
SEE: Breaking: SCOTUS Clears Way for Trump Administration's Expanded SAVE Citizenship Checks
People Not Politicians v. Onder
Date: September 25, 2026
Author: Per Curiam
Split: N/A
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: 8th Circuit
Basic Facts:
In 2022, the Missouri Legislature enacted a redistricting map for elections to the U. S. House of Representatives. In 2025, the Missouri Legislature enacted a new map. But under the Missouri Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, a new law such as the 2025 map does not take effect unless and until approved by voters in a referendum in the next election—at least where, as here, the number of voter signatures on the petition suffices to trigger a referendum. Therefore, on September 3, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the 2025 redistricting map ‘is not the law and has never been the law’ in Missouri—and will not take effect unless and until approved by Missouri voters by referendum in the 2026 election.
In short, as a matter of state law, the 2022 map—not the 2025 map—must be used in the 2026 congressional election.
In the wake of that recent Missouri Supreme Court decision, a group of voters and candidates (collectively, plaintiffs) sued in federal court. They contended that the U. S. Constitution requires Missouri to use the 2025 map in the 2026 election—even though the 2025 map cannot take effect under Missouri law unless and until it is approved by Missouri voters in the 2026 election.
Issue:
Whether the lower federal courts could require Missouri to use the 2025 congressional map in the 2026 general election after voting had already begun under the 2022 map.
Holding: Stay granted.
On the merits, the Court’s precedents have not previously stated that Article I, Section 2 requires a state to use the primary election map in a general election, and given that the equities heavily favor staying this late-breaking intervention, it suffices that the merits are not entirely clearcut. . . . The equities dictate that we stay the District Court’s September 21 and September 22 injunctions, as well as the Court of Appeals’ September 21 and September 22 orders. . . . This Court has repeatedly cautioned that ‘lower federal courts should not “alter the election rules”’ of a state ‘on the eve of an election.’
Skinny: Federal courts don’t get to rewrite a state’s election rules at the eleventh hour.
SEE: Breaking: SCOTUS Blocks 8th Circuit's Missouri Map Ruling: 'This Was Error'
