Final Brief Review of Supreme Court Rulings

Lots of ups and downs

By: Austin Abbring

July 1, 2026

The Supreme Court has officially wrapped up its term and will be on recess until October. Here is the list of impactful rulings over the last few days:

Trump v. Barbara - The Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship as part of the 14th Amendment following Trump’s executive order, which was an attempt to end guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States. The ruling was 6-3, but there was no excuse for it not to be 9-0. The Fourteenth Amendment’s language is crystal clear. This fully demonstrates the Supreme Court's shift toward being essentially a direct extension of the president and the executive branch. Our fair and balanced rule of law may be drawing its last breaths if we do not promptly seek drastic reform of the Judiciary. 

Chatrie v. United States - This ruling held that police must obtain a warrant whenever they seek to obtain a suspect’s historical location data from Google or other tech services and providers. This fell within the purview of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unlawful search and seizures. This is a win for privacy protections against the government and will certainly shape the future landscape of policing and its relationship with technology as it continues to evolve rapidly. 

Trump v. Cook - The Court denied the administration's attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Board of Governors member. Trump and his administration claimed that Cook committed mortgage fraud, an allegation that is being reviewed in lower-level courts. Trump was hoping to remove Cook in order to most likely install a loyalist at what is supposed to be our nonpartisan central bank. 

Trump v. Slaughter - The Court ruled in favor of the president in a 6-3 decision that overruled a 91-year-old decision that protected agency leaders from at-will firings by the President. This stems from Trump firing FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March of last year. This ruling creates a dangerous precedent and constitutes executive branch overreach. Donald Trump and any future president now have the authority to fire agency heads, such as those at the FTC, SEC, CPSC, NLRB, etc., for any reason. The majority of these agencies acted in a bipartisan manner, and we are now going to lose that vital bipartisanship. Businesses and consumers alike could see drastic changes at a moment's notice, as the president can drastically change the market landscape over any political grievance they may have with an agency commissioner. 

Watson v. Republican National Committee - Federal justices voted to protect absentee ballots. The federal government cannot violate state laws regarding elections. As long as mail-in ballots are postmarked on time, they will count even if they arrive after election day. This ruling defies the Trump administration in their efforts to federalize elections and disenfranchise millions of voters. Ironically enough, disenfranchise a sizeable portion of their own voting base. I am sure we will continue to face future attacks by this administration in an attempt to undermine our elections and push false narratives surrounding election security and baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. This is fascist playbook 101. It is page 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of that manual. If you don’t want to be called a fascist, don’t do fascistic things.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. - I will keep this one brief as I covered this ruling last night. The Court upheld West Virginia and Idaho state laws that ban transgender women from competing in female sports. There are twenty-five additional states with similar bans, which will most certainly be protected should they be challenged following this ruling. It is another in a wave of assaults against the transgender community. Trump, his administration, the entire Republican Party, and even a portion of the Democratic Party continue to belittle and dehumanize members of our society. It is a gross malfeasance.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission - The Court ruled to lift limits on how much political parties can spend on advertising and other campaign expenditures for their candidates. Campaign finance laws continue to be drastically loosened, which hinders efforts to keep big money out of politics. In fact, any current attempt to do so is not viable, as this has been an ongoing issue in this country since the late 1800’s. With the allowance of PACs in the 1970’s and the creation of SuperPACs following the Supreme Court’s erroneous ruling in the Citizens United case, we are in almost irreparable territory when it comes to financial influence over our elected officials. This is a bipartisan issue. Both political parties in this country are beholden to wealthy donors and lobbyists. Until Citizens United is overturned, PACs are banned, Congressional stock trading is outlawed, campaigns are publicly financed, or the campaign finance caps are drastically reduced, we will never escape this vicious cycle that has directly threatened our floundering representative democracy. This ruling sets us back so much further. This is like receiving a 15-yard penalty when you’re on your own 16-yard line. That, of course, only assumes you feel we have even made it that far down the field.