What the 2025-2026 Supreme Court Rulings Mean for Democracy

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that states have the primary authority to run elections according to their rules unless Congress has established specific laws for federal elections. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court upheld the authority of states to provide grace periods for the return of mail ballots sent on or before Election Day. But not all election decisions turned out as well for democracy: The Supreme Court’s dismantling of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Louisiana v. Callais raises questions going forward about the nature of minority representation, meaningful political participation, and fair maps.

Mail Voting

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court reasserted that states have the primary responsibility for setting election-related rules. In particular, the Court ruled that federal Election Day statutes do not dictate when a state must count mail ballots if they are postmarked by Election Day but arrive after. While federal law requires voters to cast their ballot on or before Election Day, states can determine whether to grant a post-Election Day ballot receipt deadline. The Court’s decision recognized the power states have, absent congressional action, to determine the policies that work best for their voters, including those related to mail voting. The decision means state and local officials can focus on running free, fair, secure elections under the procedures their states have chosen to adopt. 

Redistricting

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court confronted questions about the longevity of Section 2 of the VRA in taking up the question of whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violated the 14th or 15th  Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

The Court ruled that, in seeking to comply with Section 2 of the VRA and remedy race discrimination in voting by adding a second majority-Black district, the state violated the Constitution’s restrictions on race-based redistricting because Section 2 required no such district. The Court’s decision introduced a new, much higher standard for establishing a Section 2 violation that effectively requires proving intentional discrimination, not simply that a practice has the effect of discriminating against minority voters by providing them an unequal opportunity to participate in the political process relative to other voters.

The outcome of Callais could have major consequences for fair representation and the role of states in creating fair maps. Moreover, Callais not only makes it nearly impossible to establish a Section 2 violation; it also makes districts that previously provided minority voting power more vulnerable to being challenged as impermissible or redrawn for partisan ends.

Redistricting cases from New York and Texas that made their way to the Court on its emergency docket before Callais was decided—namely, Malliotakis v. Williams and LULAC v. Abbott—likewise showed that state legislators have significant leeway to pursue partisan advantage in redistricting.

Election Challenges

In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the Court addressed who has standing to sue a state over election administration issues. The case concerned whether political candidates can challenge state laws that govern the rules of the elections in which they are competing.

The Court held that candidates have a unique interest in election processes that permits them to bring lawsuits challenging state election laws, whether or not they are likely to win their contest. As a result of this decision, states may see more legal challenges from candidates over election administration issues, ranging from casting of ballots, to counting, canvassing, or certification in federal court.

This term, the Court answered significant questions related to the lawful (or, more often, unlawful) exercise of presidential power—from emergency determinations related to tariffs and federalizing the National Guard, to the president’s unprecedented firings of agency officials and attempts to rewrite the Constitution. Pro-democracy states defended against federal overreach, whether by challenging the administration’s newfound interpretation of citizenship or making clear that the president lacks the unilateral authority he often claims.

Birthright Citizenship

In Trump v. Barbara, the Court held unconstitutional President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of persons unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States. The Court reaffirmed the long-established view, in place for more than 150 years, that such children “are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

In upholding this longstanding right of citizenship, the Court limited the ability of the executive branch to unilaterally redefine constitutional rights. The administration’s position never took hold—thanks, in part, to a coalition of states that quickly challenged the order. States explained the major consequences that would follow for states and the imminent harm to certain classes of children born on U.S. soil—including devastating results like deeming U.S.-born children ineligible for food and health safety net programs. States and other groups never should have had to fight the administration on this question; denying the right of citizenship to these children is not only unconstitutional but against the very values and foundations of our nation.

Tariffs

The Court reined in the president’s claimed powers in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that President Trump could not declare a national emergency to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Instead, the Constitution places that power in Congress and IEEPA makes no exception for the president to claim such power.

States that challenged the president’s actions as unlawful explained how the president exceeded his authority, bypassed the legislative process, and effectively raised taxes on Americans. The decision reduces the risk of emergency economic measures being inflicted on American consumers and shows the Court’s important role in determining whether the president has properly invoked claimed statutory authority.

National Guard

The Court took up exaggerated claims of presidential authority—and whether courts could review his actions—in Trump v. Illinois. The case reached the Court in an emergency posture, after the administration asked the Court to allow it to deploy the federalized National Guard in Illinois over the governor’s objection, and despite lower court orders blocking such action. The case turned on when the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” such that he may invoke 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) to federalize the National Guard.

In an unsigned order, the Court left the decisions below in place, ruling that the government “failed to identify a source of authority” justifying its use of Section 12406. The Court interpreted the statute to mean that a president can federalize a state’s guard only upon a showing that the armed forces of the United States cannot provide adequate protection. The administration made no such showing in Illinois. While the question reached the Court on its emergency docket, it ultimately resolved the dispute over the Guard’s deployment entirely because the administration could not meet the high bar that the Court interpreted federal law to impose.

The ruling was significant for states and their ability to self-govern, and it halted the administration’s planned deployment of National Guard troops in non-consenting cities and states nationwide. The Court emphasized that “exceptional” circumstances would have to exist for the president to have “statutory and constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military” and to be “‘unable’ with those forces to perform that function.”

Independent Federal Agencies

In Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, the Court confronted whether the president must abide by statutes that require the for-cause removal of independent agency heads—namely, a commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, respectively. States argued that allowing the firings would undermine executive accountability, defy longstanding structures on which the rule of law depends, and create severe instabilities in regulatory policy.

The Court permitted at-will firings in Slaughter, overturning precedent that had applied for 90 years in ruling that the applicable statute’s for-cause requirement impermissibly and unconstitutionally constrained executive power. On the other hand, the Court retained for-cause firings for the Federal Reserve, citing the nation’s long tradition of an independent central bank and the financial instability that could otherwise result.

The result in Slaughter means that agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently from Executive Branch pressures will now be subject to direct presidential control. The president’s systematic removal of agency leaders and aggressive steps to consolidate power will have far-reaching consequences and dramatically alter longstanding institutions meant to serve and protect the public without political interference.

Immigration Enforcement

The Court also took up important questions related to immigration enforcement.

In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, which concerned racial profiling and federal immigration enforcement tactics in Los Angeles and reached the Court in an emergency posture on the administration’s request, the Court allowed the federal government to continue practices that included stopping individuals who appeared Hispanic, spoke Spanish, and sought low-wage work. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that, “[t]o be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.”

The decision suggested that the Court will limit lower-court injunctions against federal immigration operations, even when serious constitutional concerns exist. Vasquez Perdomo underscores the importance of rigorous documentation of any alleged abuses for purposes of litigation against the federal government and other accountability efforts.

In Mullin v. Doe, the Court limited judicial review of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations to constitutional claims and, even then, permitted removal of hundreds of thousands of long-term residents while litigation continues on such claims. The decision to allow the termination of TPS designations (in this case, for Syrians and Haitians) as they come up for review opens the door to the loss of legal work authorization and the potential removal of individuals who have lived, worked, and raised families in the United States for years. For states, the implications extend beyond immigration enforcement, affecting communities that have come to rely on TPS holders as workers, taxpayers, business owners, and neighbors.

The Supreme Court’s October 2025 term made one thing clear: The fight for democracy is rarely won or lost in a single ruling. Yet individual cases carry enormous significance and can define the permissible and impermissible bounds of executive power.

The Court delivered important wins to states and others challenging the president’s actions on birthright citizenship, tariffs, and the National Guard. And the Court reiterated that states have primary authority for setting election rules. At the same time, voting maps that once protected minority representation are now more vulnerable and subject to naked partisanship. And agencies like the FTC that Congress envisioned as exercising authority independent from the presidency are now instruments of the administration.

States will continue to be the first line of defense in protecting against federal abuse and overreach and highlighting the social and economic costs of this administration’s policies and actions, especially when it comes to elections and the rule of law.