Presidential power, immigration rulings highlight Supreme Court's term
by Joe Fisher · UPIJuly 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 through 2026 term ended with a flurry of rulings last week, capping a consequential stretch of decisions on immigration cases, presidential power and legal protections for private companies.
The conservative majority on the bench dealt several decisions that favored President Donald Trump but rejected his bid to end birthright citizenship for the time being. Among its most empowering decisions for the executive branch was its ruling that the judicial branch cannot block the president's firing of a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, upending 90 years of precedent.
These are some of the cases the Supreme Court ruled on in its latest term.
Louisiana vs. Callais
In April, the Supreme Court's decision came down in the case Louisiana vs. Callais, ordering that a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana was unconstitutionally drawn because race was a basis for redistricting.
The state legislature had redrawn its congressional map in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, two of the state's six congressional districts were populated with a majority of Black voters, reflecting the state's population more accurately.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's opinion in its 6-3 decision. The ruling was met along ideological lines with all six conservative justices ruling against the redistricted congressional map.
"Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional gerrymander," Alito wrote. "Louisiana's enactment of SB8 triggered strict scrutiny because the State's underlying goal was racial."
The ruling raises the bar for proving racial gerrymandering took place in redistricting, making it harder for racial minorities to make challenges on the basis that maps were drawn to dilute their electoral power.
Penning the minority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling encourages states to "announce a partisan gerrymander" to avoid litigation that is based on claims of racial gerrymandering.
"Assuming the State has left behind non-smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive [an almost fanciful prospect], Section 2 will play no role," Kagan wrote. "Whatever -- results from the State's asserted justification is all its minority citizens are entitled to. Even if the State has deprived those citizens [but not their majority neighbors] of all opportunity to 'elect representatives of their choice' the law will not protect them."
Trump vs. Slaughter
Among the final flurry of decisions by the Supreme Court before its summer recess it upheld Trump's firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. The ruling went 6-3 with support from the six conservative justices.
The decision reversed course on 90 years of precedent as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that Congress' "for cause" removal protections for independent agencies violates the separation of powers.
"What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms -- the president may remove his subordinates at will," Roberts wrote."
The requirement by Congress that states officials in independent agencies cannot be fired without cause is meant to uphold agency independence and shield independent nonpartisan agencies from political influence.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the minority opinion, said that the ruling grants the president "far greater power than ever before."
"It is a power, however, that neither the People, no Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him," Sotomayor wrote. "In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty. I respectfully dissent."
The precedent in question comes from the case Humphrey's Executor vs. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could block the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause.
Monsanto vs. Durnell
In June, the Supreme Court weighed in on a longstanding legal tussle over the accountability of herbicide makers for causing cancer. In the case Monsanto vs. Durnell, the high court ruled that Monsanto cannot be sued for not putting labels on its products to warn consumers that they may cause cancer because the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed weedkillers safe to use.
John Durnell brought a case against Monsanto in Missouri in 2019, alleging that his use of Roundup for about two decades caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He argued that Roundup should carry a cancer warning on its label.
Monsanto, owned by Bayer, and its popular weedkiller Roundup have been the focal point of lawsuits dating back more than a decade. Numerous lawsuits have alleged that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
The World Health Organization had said that the chemical is a probable human carcinogen. Studies of glyphosate have found that it does cause damage to the liver and kidneys of rats.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion.
"In sum, federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label that EPA approved at the initial registration and that EPA has subsequently re-approved on multiple occasions -- that is, the label without a cancer warning," Kavanaugh wrote. "Durnell's state tort claim, by contrast, would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its labels."
Trump vs. Barbara
On June 30 the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the president's plans to end birthright citizenship in the United States. It ruled 6-3 against Trump's 2025 executive order ending birthright citizenship.
The court's three liberal justices were joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority.
The decision upholds the long understood interpretation of the 14th Amendment clause that reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"Citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights -- to freely participate in our political community," Roberts wrote. "We keep that promise today."
The president reacted to the decision on social media, saying that he will pursue an end to birthright citizenship through legislation. Trump attended oral arguments in the case in April, making him the first president to sit in on oral arguments in the Supreme Court.
"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process," Trump wrote. "No long, unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They have my Complete and Total Support!"
Mullin vs. Doe
Late last month the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can end temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian refugees. The ruling puts the legal statuses of more than 350,000 Haitian refugees and 6,000 Syrian refugees in question.
The court's ruling actually went a step further, restricting the judiciary from weighing in claims that the executive branch ending TPS is unlawful unless those challenges make claims on constitutional grounds. This limits the options for legal recourse when an injured party believes that a decision to end their protected status was made based on racial animus.
The high court rejected the argument in this case that the Trump administration's decision to end TPS for Haitian and Syrian refugees was based in part on racial animus. The court changed the precedent from proving that racial animus was part of the decision, raising the bar to it being the main or sole factor.
The previous precedent was set in the case Arlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Housing Development Court. The Supreme Court had ruled that plaintiffs must demonstrate a clear intent to discriminate when proving a violation of the Fair Housing Act. The court did not rule plaintiffs must prove race was the only factor.
In Mullin vs. Doe, Alito wrote in the majority opinion that lower court judges do not have the authority to stop the executive branch from striking down TPS. He also wrote that ending TPS for Haitians is not racial discrimination.
Plaintiffs in the case shared comments made by Trump and other Trump administration officials that demeaned the people and country of Haiti on numerous occasions. Alito wrote that none of Trump's comments were "overtly racial" and it was "insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti's TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people."