Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Chart of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of 2025.
The three biggest US Supreme Court cases to watch
The 2025 Supreme Court term began this month, ushering in a slate of cases that could reshape American governance. No one will be watching more closely than President Donald Trump, whose efforts to expand executive power and limit independent oversight will be under the judicial microscope.
Here are the biggest cases to watch:
Is it time to end the Voting Rights Act? Louisiana v. Callais
Louisiana v. Callais will be argued today. It could upend the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the landmark 1965 law that outlawed discriminatory practices that were designed to limit people's access to the ballot on the basis of race. Before the VRA, African Americans in the South — though granted suffrage by the 15th Amendment in 1870 — were often disenfranchised by literacy tests, poll taxes, and gerrymandered districts designed to dilute their political power.
Today, Section 2 of the VRA is frequently used, most often by Democrats, to challenge electoral maps that diminish the voting strength of minority groups. Louisiana vs Callais arose after courts ordered Louisiana to create one more majority-Black congressional district in order to better reflect the state’s demographics. In practice, this would also create a safer district for Democrats in a state that is controlled by the GOP.
The state is arguing that all “race-based redistricting is unconstitutional,” even when it creates more demographically-balanced maps, and that the VRA “inherently rests on a racial stereotype: that all voters of a particular race must — by virtue of their membership in their racial class — think alike.”
The stakes: If the Court accepts Louisiana’s argument, it would overturn decades of precedent and would likely spur several states to redraw maps ahead of the midterms — which could cost Democrats seats.
“A ruling to strike down Section two would matter quite a lot to redistricting efforts in the South,” says Eurasia Group US expert Noah Daponte-Smith. “It would put a number of Democratic seats currently protected by the VRA at risk, bolstering Republicans’ narrow advantage in the ongoing redistricting war.”
Who controls US trade policy? Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump tests whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval.
In February and April 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs. First, on Canada, Mexico, and China, citing drug trafficking and immigration emergencies. Then, globally with “Liberation Day” tariffs that hit nearly all US trading partners.
Lower courts have unanimously ruled that there was no emergency and that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose unilateral tariffs — a power the Constitution explicitly assigns to Congress under Article I.
The Trump administration cites that IEEPA gives the president the power to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat…to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” and argues the threat of fentanyl and disadvantageous trade deals constitute a national security and economic threat.
The stakes: If the Court sides with Trump, it would effectively cede Congress’s constitutional power over trade to the presidency. If it rules against him, the tariffs could be struck down. A middle-ground decision could let the tariffs stand but narrow IEEPA’s reach. Either way, who will chart America’s role in the global economy hangs in the balance.
“The IEEPA case is one of the most significant in the court’s recent history,” says Daponte-Smith. “The implications for US and global markets, and for US politics, are enormous.”
Can the president fire members of the Federal Reserve? Trump v. Cook
The case with the greatest potential to expand executive power is Trump v. Cook, which centers on whether the president has the authority to remove Federal Reserve officials. The case stems from Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud. The Court has temporarily blocked her dismissal pending oral arguments in January.
Cook denies the mortgage fraud and argues that she is being removed for political reasons – namely that she was appointed by Former President Joe Biden and has a record of siding with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who Trump has disagreed with on interest rate decisions. Trump, in his letter firing Cook, said that the mortgage fraud allegations constitute “gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question [Cook’s] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”
The stakes: “A Fed in which any governor can be fired by the president for cause is not truly independent,” says Daponte-Smith. Cook’s removal would open the door for Trump to install loyalists who could align monetary policy with his political goals. No President in the Fed’s 111-year history has ever successfully removed a sitting Fed governor, largely because the central bank’s independence is seen as a cornerstone of US economic regulation.
More to come?
While Daponte-Smith says rulings in these three cases could “substantially expand executive power, with little oversight, effecting a significant change in the manner in which the United States is governed,” he warns that the high-stake showdown between the Supreme Court and the executive branch may still be ahead.
“I would be watching the various cases percolating up through the court system on the legality of National Guard deployments domestically,” he says. “I’d expect at least one to reach the Supreme Court this term — likely on an emergency basis — and the administration has taken a confrontational tone with the courts on this issue.”