What's on the agenda for U.S. Supreme Court in 2026

Here are the Supreme Court cases to watch in 2026, according to Axios:

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court will likely decide Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship in early 2026 in Trump v. Barbara.

Driving the news: Upholding Trump's order, which seeks to bar children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. from citizenship, would overturn a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld by the court for more than a century.

Trump's order was quickly met with legal challenges, and several courts temporarily halted its implementation.

Flashback: The administration argues birthright citizenship applies only to formerly enslaved people who were granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

Michael LeRoy, an immigration law expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, previously told Axios' Avery Lotz that it's impossible to predict how SCOTUS will rule — but a decision in Trump's favor could have sweeping implications for other constitutional protections.

Trump's tariff case

SCOTUS will decide the legality of Trump declaring a national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval, in what he has called the "most important case ever" in Learning Resources v. Trump.

State of play: A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than $100 billion in tariffs already collected and curtail his ability to use declared emergencies to enact his economic agenda.

Trump has repeatedly claimed tariff revenue will help pay down the national debt, bankroll aid to farmers and cover the cost of his new "warrior dividend" — a one-time $1,776 bonus for roughly 1.45 million service members — even though the bonus is actually being paid out of previously approved Pentagon housing funds, not tariffs.

Yes, but: The president has argued his far-reaching tariffs create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, claims many economists dispute. Economists also worry the government might ultimately have to return the tariff revenue.

In recent weeks, companies including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods and the maker of Ray-Ban have sued, seeking refunds if the justices ultimately strike down the tariffs.

What Trump's saying: "Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court," Trump said in Truth Social post in November.

"Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!"

Banning conversion therapy

SCOTUS is expected to rule on a case challenging bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors — a discredited practice aimed at changing young people's sexual orientations or gender identities in Chiles v. Salazar.

Zoom out: The justices will decide whether therapists' conversations with patients are protected by the First Amendment or considered medical treatment that states can regulate.

LGBTQ+ advocates, major medical and mental health organizations have condemned conversion therapy as harmful, discriminatory and ineffective.

Worth noting: Twenty-three states had full bans on conversion therapy as of late 2025, with five states imposing a partial ban. Five states prohibit such bans, while 18 have no restrictions.

Trans athletes in women's sports

SCOTUS will hear arguments in two major cases — one from Idaho and another from West Virginia — where states banned transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

Zoom in: The court could decide Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, does not protect transgender athletes competing in sports consistent with their gender identity.

A decision against the athletes would mark a major setback for the LGBTQ+ community, adding to Trump's other 2025 actions to limit protections for transgender individuals.

The Voting Rights Act

The high court appears poised to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a decision that would reshape how legislative and congressional maps are drawn nationwide and potentially reduce minority representation by significant margins in Louisiana v. Callais.

Why it matters: The case challenges a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that has created maps that allow minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. Overturning it could allow Republicans to lock in additional congressional and legislative seats across the country.

The ruling could make it significantly harder for minority voters to secure or maintain electoral representation.

Campaign finance

SCOTUS will rule on a Republican-backed challenge that aims to overturn decades-old limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates in NRSC v. FEC.

What we're watching: Election watchdogs warn that removing these limits would destroy the few remaining firewalls between big money and candidates.

The case would further remove campaign finance restrictions on how much an individual or group can donate directly to a candidate, which provides a safeguard against bribery or suspected corruption.

How it works: Under current law, political action committees can raise unlimited funds, but they can't coordinate with candidates.

Parties, on the other hand, are limited in how much they can raise, but they are able to cooperate with candidates.

Republicans argue those limits violate the First Amendment by preventing parties from supporting their nominees.

Firing independent agency heads

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump has the unilateral authority to fire leaders of independent agencies in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter.

The bottom line: A ruling for Trump would overturn a 90-year-old precedent that shielded independent agency commissioners from political firings.

Catch up quick: The cases stem from Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and his firings of FTC officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who later resigned.

Trump said their service at the agency was "inconsistent with my Administration's policies," in a letter announcing the terminations.

Hawaii law prohibiting guns

SCOTUS will rule on the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals from carrying guns onto private property unless the owner gives explicit consent in Wolford v. Lopez.

Hawaii's list of "sensitive places," where firearms are banned, includes more than 15 categories — places such as bars, beaches and banks — which plaintiffs argue violates their 2nd Amendment rights.

Context: Hawaii enacted the new restrictions in 2023 after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which held that the 2nd Amendment included the right to carry in public.

California has faced similar legal challenges after passing laws aimed at tightening firearm restrictions on private property.

The justices have agreed to consider only Hawaii's burden flipping provision, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, finding that the state's law "falls well within the historical tradition," and not the broader sensitive places restrictions as a whole.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mississippi rebuffs confession of murder carried out at direction of prison guards

For months, Chancellor Berrong, a 26-year-old in prison for assault and kidnapping, has been trying to tell the authorities that he killed a man in a Mississippi jail seven years ago, reported The New York Times.

He told a prison guard that he had information about the crime, attempted to confess to a detective and gave a written confession to a prison warden, he said, but agents with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, the state agency that typically investigates in-custody deaths, took no action.

In interviews, Mr. Berrong said that he attacked William Wade Aycock IV at the request of a guard in 2018. That allegation is disputed by a former inmate, who told reporters he overheard Mr. Berrong and others planning the assault to stop Mr. Aycock from implicating a member of their gang in an unrelated crime.

Previous reporting on the Rankin County Adult Detention Center, where Mr. Aycock died, revealed that for years, guards relied on some inmates as an attack squad to help keep order and to retaliate against troublemakers.

A review of the initial investigation of the death reveals that the authorities took steps that could have hindered a full accounting of what happened. Guards and inmates cleaned the cell where Mr. Aycock died with bleach before the state investigators arrived, according to four witnesses. In addition, the M.B.I.’s investigation file contains no photos of the cell, no security camera footage and no notes from interviews with inmates.

Days after the death, M.B.I. agents and the state medical examiner determined that Mr. Aycock died by accident after falling off his bunk bed — without documenting the evidence that led them to this conclusion.

Mississippi Today and The New York Times have uncovered evidence that supports Mr. Berrong’s confession and suggests that the authorities ignored or destroyed evidence that could have helped solve the case. His account is the latest allegation of wrongdoing by law enforcement in Rankin County, a Jackson suburb where sheriff’s deputies have been accused of torturing suspected drug users.

Jason Dare, the spokesperson and attorney for the sheriff’s department, said he had forwarded reporters’ request for comment to the M.B.I. He declined to comment further.

The commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Sean Tindell, said that the M.B.I. would reopen the case based on the new information.

Guards and inmates at the Rankin County Adult Detention Center cleaned up the scene of Mr. Aycock’s death before investigators arrived, according to four witnesses.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times

Mr. Berrong, a member of the Latin Kings street gang with a long criminal record, said that in June 2018, he yanked a sleeping Mr. Aycock off the top bunk in his cell, slammed him to the floor and stomped on his head. He said he never intended to kill the man, just to send him a message to keep his mouth shut.

Mr. Berrong said he has come forward out of a sense of guilt.

For seven years, he said, he had gotten away with the crime, in part because of missteps in the investigation. Shortly after killing Mr. Aycock, he watched a group of inmates and guards soak up the blood, which had spread past the cell door, and douse the cell in bleach.

A former inmate named John Phillips said he cleaned the cell before the M.B.I. arrived and compared the scene to a horror film. Two former guards who spoke on the condition of anonymity witnessed the cleanup and confirmed the former inmates’ accounts.

When the investigators arrived, they were “angrily talking with each other about the fact that the whole cell has been bleached,” Mr. Berrong said. “They said, ‘There’s nothing here.’”

The M.B.I.’s investigative report on Mr. Aycock’s death, provided by Mr. Tindell, makes no mention of the cleanup.

Mr. Tindell said he spoke with the agent responsible for the report, who said he did not recall the cell being cleaned or seeing men enter Mr. Aycock’s cell in security camera footage. Mr. Tindell said the footage was not preserved by the M.B.I.

The Rankin County Sheriff’s Department declined to release investigative records related to the case, citing a state law that allows police agencies to withhold such materials.

The M.B.I.’s file on the case amounts to a two-paragraph summary of the investigation and the autopsy report. There are no photos or security camera footage and no interview descriptions, even though several inmates said they were interrogated by investigators.

“The reporting at the time obviously left some things to be desired,” Mr. Tindell said in an interview.

The Rankin County Sheriff’s Department declined to release records related to the case, citing a state law that allows police agencies to withhold such materials.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times

In the years since he took over the department in 2020, the agency has improved its record-keeping practices by “making sure that we had witness lists, that we had narratives, that there was a narrative for everybody that you interviewed and that supervisors had to review their work,” he said. “In this report, there’s none of those things.”

Two days after the M.B.I. filed its report concluding that Mr. Aycock had died from an accidental fall, the Mississippi state medical examiner ruled his death an accident.

Local Investigations

This article was reported and edited as part of the Local Investigations Fellowship, a New York Times program where local reporters produce investigative work about their communities, and supported in part by a grant from the Pulitzer Center.

Three pathologists who reviewed the autopsy at the request of reporters said that while it was reasonable to conclude he had died accidentally given what the authorities knew at the time, Mr. Berrong’s account aligned with the injuries recorded in Mr. Aycock’s autopsy.

Dr. Thomas Andrew, the former chief medical examiner of New Hampshire, said that he would have told the agents assigned to the case to investigate further before he could reach a determination.

Details missing from the report, like pictures of Mr. Aycock’s cell and security camera footage, could have led examiners to a different conclusion, he said.

The M.B.I. had an opportunity to reopen the case in 2022, when an inmate eyewitness told a Rankin County Sheriff’s Department detective that he had seen Mr. Berrong and another inmate leave Mr. Aycock’s cell moments before guards found him lying in a pool of blood.

The witness, who was being held in the jail in 2018, spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity, citing fears of retaliation from Mr. Berrong’s associates.

The detective relayed the information to an M.B.I. agent, the eyewitness said, but the authorities never contacted him again. The witness said that he also wrote a letter to the M.B.I. detailing what he had seen, and that his son called the Rankin County District Attorney’s Office to report the information, but they never heard back from the agencies.

To read more CLICK HERE

Detailed summary of each day of Mangione pretrial hearing

 Christine Savino | Cornell Law School provides a detailed summary of Luigi Mangione's pretrial hearing on JURISTnews:

Editor’s note: This is Day 9 (final day) of JURIST’s coverage of Luigi Mangione’s suppression hearings. Read Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Days 5-7, Day 8.

Luigi Mangione is accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, CEO of medical insurance company UnitedHealthcare, on December 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel in New York state. He faces a nine-count indictment including second-degree murder, where he faces 25 years to life in prison, and multiple weapons offenses. Mangione was arrested on December 9, 2024, in Altoona, Pennsylvania—a city approximately 280 miles from New York City—five days after the shooting. While the arrest occurred in Pennsylvania, he is being prosecuted in New York state, where the alleged crime took place. The suppression hearings—pre-trial proceedings where a judge decides what evidence can be used at trial—determined what evidence from his Pennsylvania arrest can be used in the New York trial. Mangione pleaded not guilty to all charges in late December 2024.

The prosecution and defense completed their presentations on December 18, concluding three weeks of suppression hearings in the New York state case against Mangione. The prosecution called 17 witnesses from Mangione’s December 9 arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The defense called no witnesses. No trial date was set.

Judge Gregory Carro announced the litigation calendar: defense filings are due by January 29, prosecution’s response by March 5, and Judge Carro’s ruling on May 18. Mangione’s next New York state hearing was scheduled for May 18, at which time Judge Carro may set a trial date. The approximately five-month timeline to issue suppression decisions is longer than expected, as were the suppression hearings themselves. The defense faces an uphill battle, as most motions to suppress are denied.

Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann pushed for a trial date, stating that Brian Thompson’s mother is 77 years old, and it “is important to the family of the victim to be able to know…whether or not this is the person who shot their son.” Upon Assistant District Attorney Seidemann’s request, there was a sidebar regarding scheduling. Defense counsel briefly conferred with Mangione, after which Attorney Marc Agnifilo told Judge Carro, “we spoke with our client, and he is willing to let us have proceedings, on the record, without you being present.” Mangione waived his right to be present during the private scheduling discussion, as defendants are not permitted to participate in these conversations.

Mangione appeared tense during the private discussion, unlike the first day of hearings when he smiled often.

Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo challenged whether the prosecution had fully complied with discovery obligations—the requirement that both sides share evidence with each other. She cited a December 17, 2024 press briefing where New York Police Department (NYPD) Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny described a conversation with Mangione’s mother, Kathleen Mangione:

She didn’t indicate that it was her son in the photograph, but she said it might be something that she could see him doing. So that information was going to be passed along to the detectives the next morning, but fortunately we apprehended him before we could act on that.

This statement was widely published by major news outlets including Fox News, People, and CBS News. The defense described the statement as an “unfounded claim” that was “widely quoted by numerous news outlets” in a November filing.

Attorney Friedman Agnifilo then referenced discovery documents that contradicted Chief Kenny’s public statement. The documents said: “Kathleen [Mangione] stated that Luigi has not made any suicidal statements and was not a risk to himself or others.” She argued Chief Kenny’s statement was “the opposite of what was said, and we didn’t get the opportunity to cross-examine Officer Diaz regarding this,” referring to NYPD Detective Oscar Diaz, a Manhattan South Homicide Squad detective. She requested that the prosecution “retract that statement, because that was never said by Mr. Mangione’s mother.”

Attorney Friedman Agnifilo argued that the defense was not granted a Dunaway hearing—a New York-specific suppression hearing used to determine whether a defendant’s statements or evidence were obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure or detention, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and New York State Constitution. She stated the defense intended to cross-examine NYPD Detective Oscar Diaz on whether the statement was part of probable cause.

Assistant District Attorney Seidemann countered that the statement was made a year ago and not relevant to Mapp or Huntley hearings—pre-trial suppression hearings under New York law that determine whether evidence was obtained legally.

Judge Carro appeared to side with the prosecution, stating, “most of the video was relevant to the hearing, and the People did say that they would make any Altoona or NYPD officers available if you want to call them.”

In a press conference outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, Attorney Friedman Agnifilo, surrounded by the defense team, stated that the hearings “unnecessarily” extended into three weeks when “we were told this was going to be several days.” She stated that “it was only after Lieutenant Leonardi testified about the illegal wiretap of Mr. Mangione in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that they withdrew statement notice, and now suddenly we’re not going to have the lead case detective in this case.”

“We want the New York Police Department or the San Francisco Police Department or the Manhattan District Attorney to correct this very prejudicial statement that was never said,” Attorney Friedman Agnifilo stated before ending the press conference.

If the prosecution cannot provide evidence of the statement, they will not be able to present it at trial. However, this would likely not affect probable cause, which was the focus of the suppression hearings.

One point of contention during the hearings was whether New York or Pennsylvania law applied. Mangione was placed into custody in Altoona, Pennsylvania for forgery and related Pennsylvania charges, although New York officers quickly arrived, believing Altoona authorities may have apprehended the shooting suspect. Blair County District Attorney Pete Weeks stated:

There appears to be confusion with the media because New York law is different than Pennsylvania law. My office has argued in filed public documents and continues to assert that Altoona police officers lawfully arrested Mr. Mangione for crimes he allegedly committed in Pennsylvania in the presence of the officers…Because of his arrest, he and his property were then subject to a legal warrantless search incident to arrest allowed under Pennsylvania law and his property was then subject to an additional lawful inventory search as well.

Throughout three weeks of proceedings, Mangione frequently exhibited animated facial expressions, particularly furrowing his eyebrows when seemingly confused or frustrated. His relationship with the press appeared strained—he previously yelled at reporters for being “out of touch” with the “American people.” During testimony from SCI Huntingdon Corrections Officer Thomas Rivers—who stated that Mangione asked him about media perception—Mangione briefly put his head in his hand before returning to his usual demeanor.

The defense argued that suppression exhibits should be sealed from the media until trial. Judge Carro partially denied the motion, reasoning that “since this is a suppression hearing, and the court has not ruled whether this evidence will be admitted at any trial, sealing would prevent substantial possibility that the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be harmed.”

Mangione’s next hearing is scheduled for January 9, 2025, where he will appear before Judge Arun Subramanian at 40 Foley Square in New York for his federal case, United States v. Mangione. The defense has moved to challenge the constitutionality of Mangione’s death penalty. Like in his New York state case, the defense has also moved to suppress evidence due to the warrantless search and statements under Miranda. Additionally, the defense has moved to dismiss Counts 3 (murder through the use of a firearm) and Count 4 (firearms offense), which are based on the same facts and evidence as the New York state indictment.

To read more CLICK HERE

Indiana spent $1.175 million on four doses of execution drugs, two doses expired

Indiana spent more than $1 million in taxpayer funds to purchase four doses of execution drugs — some which were used, and several others that expired, reported the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

Gov. Mike Braun clarified that the drugs were purchased in two transactions — one under former Gov. Eric Holcomb and one by him.

In total, $1.175 million was spent, Braun said. But two of those — worth $600,000 — expired with no use because “they had been on the shelf too long.”

Braun emphasized, however, that neither of the doses used by the Indiana Department of Correction in December and May were expired when administered to inmates.

Reporting by the Indiana Capital Chronicle previously revealed that at least $900,000 was spent by Holcomb’s administration to purchase pentobarbital. The execution drug was used in December to carry out the death penalty for convicted killer Joseph Corcoran, and again in May for the execution of Benjamin Ritchie.

“It was tricky, because if you acquired it, and there was some type of glitch, then you go into the same thing that happened with the Holcomb administration, which bought three (doses) — anticipating more (executions). But in course, two expired, so we were careful to make sure it looked like all the administrative parts (of the judicial process) were done,” Braun said, adding that his administration waited until “right before” Ritchie’s execution before buying any new doses of the drug.

“We knew that was going to be a fait accompli,” he continued. “I was careful, so that it looked like (the execution) was going to take place, and not have something occur. And that was a little tricky. But at that point, the Indiana Supreme Court and the parole board would have been all that was left to get through. Administratively, that looked like it had a pretty defined time frame. … It was a question of when you were going to actually get it and not be stranded with it.”

Braun denied Ritchie clemency less than a week before the execution.

Braun’s office confirmed that his predecessor paid $900,000 for three doses of the drug. Only one of those doses was used, however; the other two doses expired. Braun said earlier this month that the drug has a 90-shelf life.

 To read more CLICK HERE

My blog mattmangino.com hits 10 million page views

**** ****

Here's a good idea: Let's get in the middle of a religious conflict in Nigeria

After the U.S. military launched airstrikes on sites in northwestern Nigeria on Thursday, President Trump said the targets were Islamic State terrorists “who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians,” reported The New York Times.

But analysts say that the situation on the ground is more complicated.

Sokoto State, which was hit by more than 16 Tomahawk missiles early Friday, is populated overwhelmingly by Muslims, who bear the brunt of terrorist attacks there, according to analysts and groups that monitor conflict. Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah of Sokoto said recently that the area does “not have a problem with persecution” of Christians.

And analysts are divided over the existence of ties between insurgent groups in Sokoto and the Islamic State.

Some analysts say that the violent attackers in Sokoto, who are colloquially known as the Lakurawa, have links to the Islamic State’s Sahel Province branch, which is mostly farther north and west, in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso.

But other analysts say evidence of those links is inconclusive, as the identity of the Lakurawa group remains very murky. Its militants have operated in Sokoto and other Nigerian states for years, winning popularity by fighting local bandits at first and then turning on the rural population.

Even as the Nigerian authorities have disputed Mr. Trump’s claims about a Christian “genocide,” they have chosen to respond to his threats by cooperating with his administration. Nigeria has taken the opportunity to use U.S. firepower against insurgents that have plagued rural communities in the country’s northwest.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump administration ignores the First Amendment this holiday season

The Trump administration celebrated Christmas on Thursday by posting a series of religious messages from official government accounts, using language that drew criticism from those who pointed to the country’s separation of church and state.

While many lawmakers in both parties posted universal messages of love, joy and peace on the holiday, a number of cabinet members and agencies made references to Jesus and the religious meaning of Christmas.

“Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote. “May His light bring peace, hope, and joy to you and your families.”

Posts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Homeland Security Department and the Labor Department followed in a similar vein.

“The joyous message of Christmas is the hope of Eternal Life through Christ,” Mr. Rubio said.

“Let Earth Receive Her King,” the Labor Department said.

Apparently, the Trump administration is a “proponent” of only some of the First Amendment. The separation of church and state is a core US principle, rooted in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, meaning the government can't establish a religion or favor one over others, ensuring neutrality and protecting religious freedom for all, including non-believers, through a metaphorical "wall of separation".

Government officials have traditionally steered clear of such overtly religious language, as the Constitution bans an official state religion. The First Amendment’s establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another, while the free exercise clause protects the religious expression of all faiths.

In response to a request for comment, a White House spokeswoman, Anna Kelly, issued a short statement, saying: “Who are the critics? You? And Merry Christmas!”

One of the most extensive Christmas messages was posted by the Homeland Security Department on Christmas Eve. It read, “We are blessed to share a nation and a Savior,” and included a video that featured images including the American flag, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, President Trump and a Nativity scene, along with the words “Remember the miracle of Christ’s birth.”

To read more CLICK HERE