The Court will be releasing one or more opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

Below are the list of what I see as the biggest cases remaining for the term.

Louisiana v. Callais- Whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Voting Right Act)

Trump v. Slaughter- Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled. Also whether a federal court may prevent a person's removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. & Little v. Hecox- Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

Trump v. Cook- Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

U.S. v. Hemani- Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission- Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. 109.37.

Watson v. Republican National Committee- Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. 7, 2 U.S.C. 1, and 3 U.S.C. 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

Trump v. Barbara- Birthright Citizenship

Monsanto Company v. Durnell- Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

Chatrie v. United States- Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Trump v. Miot & Mullin v. Doe- Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Haitian nationals (Miot) and Syrian nationals (Mullin).

If there is more than one opinion, it will be released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

Opinions are also released in reverse seniority with the Chief Justice always being the most "senior" regardless of time on the Court. So if Jackson has the first opinion, then the next one can come from any Justice. If the first opinion is by Alito, it means the next opinion would be either by Alito again, Thomas or the Chief.

*********************************

Trump v. Miot & Mullin v. Doe are being argued today once the opinion(s) are released.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. will be argued after the TPS cases and will be the last scheduled case for the term.

Thanks for doing these threads.

Second and last today is Louisiana v. Callais.

6-3 by Justice Alito

Thomas with a concurring opinion.

Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent.

Quote:

---

A group of voters describing themselves as "non African American" had challenged the map that the state drew in 2024 after a federal court struck down the previous map on the ground that the previous map violated the Voting Rights Act.

The court rules that the 2024 map, which created a second majority-black district, was "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

The court does not strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Louisiana v. Callais

by Justice Alito

---

FINALLY

So partisan gerrymandering is a fact of politics and is not justiceable, but racial gerrymandering is illegal. It seems to me that under this standard it would be very difficult to prove racial gerrymandering.

Sounds like a huge win for for Republicans. Let the partisan redistricting in red states go forth.

Ag87H2O said:

---

So partisan gerrymandering is a fact of politics and is not justiceable, but racial gerrymandering is illegal. It seems to me that under this standard it would be very difficult to prove racial gerrymandering.

Sounds like a huge win for for Republicans. Let the partisan redistricting in red states go forth.

---

The court is basically saying "if you're dumb enough to call your map a racial gerrymander, you deserve to lose."

Quote:

---

In short, 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race. Not only does this interpretation follow from the plain text of 2, but it is consistent with the limited authority that the Fifteenth Amendment confers.

---

Just prior

Quote:

---

A plaintiff [alleging racial discrimination] may carry its disentanglement burden by offering an alternative map that achieves all the State's objectivesincluding partisan advantage and any of the State's other political goalsat least as well as the State's map.

---

Disparate impact is dead. Seeking minority-majority districts specifically is dead.

The states can gerrymander at will, as long as race is not the main reason for the gerrymander. States are prevented from considering race as the primary driver for gerrymander.

Republicans can re-draw districts with zero regard for race going forward.

Respectfully, I'm not interested in your opinion/understanding, after your earlier insult on this thread. There will be plenty of outcomes of this, in fairly short order.

Logos Stick said:

---

Liberals arguing that section 2 is not dead.

---

Dead? No. Gutted and bleeding out as a sole reason for drawing a majority-minority district going forward? Yes.

Oh they can argue, and certainly on occasion find a trial court judge to agree with them, but it's functionally dead with the new standard/tests.
Redstate:

Quote:

---

SB8, enacted in 2024, created a District 6 stretching roughly 250 miles from Shreveport through Alexandria and Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Louisiana drew the district after a federal judge in Robinson v. Ardoin found the previous map likely violated Section 2.

No compelling interest justified that race-conscious decision, Alito wrote, because Section 2 had not actually required Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district in the first place. The Robinson plaintiffs, he wrote, had failed at every step of the updated test. Their illustrative maps would have placed

Rep. Julia Letlow in a district with more than twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, effectively ending her career in Congress.

Their racial polarization analysis did not control for partisan preference. And their totality-of-circumstances showing leaned heavily on the "sordid history" of pre-Voting Rights Act discrimination rather than current conditions. Alito wrote that the Voting Rights Act "is not designed to punish for the past" but "works to ensure a better future," quoting the Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder.

---

A very much-so great opinion by Alito, imho, respecting both precedent, the constitution, and legislative language/intent in light of historical changes.

No wonder @MZHemingway thought a book on Alito was needed! https://t.co/dtclALfttu

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 29, 2026