January 2, 2026
Transgender athletes, the second amendment, presidential powers, birthright citizenship, and voting rights. The supreme court is going to be veeeeeeeerrry busy in the first half of 2026 because they are going to be hearing oral arguments in cases about all this stuff.
Ok – let’s go in order. The first big issue the justices are going to tackle in January is transgender rights. On January 13th they are going to hear two separate cases about the rights of transgendered athletes. Both cases are challenging laws passed in the states of Idaho and West Virginia that block transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girl’s sports teams. Of course Idaho and West Virginia aren’t the only states that have laws like this. There are a total of about 25 states with the same types of laws. In both of these cases – the lower courts and the appellate courts have blocked these Idaho and West Virginia’s laws saying that they violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause by violating the rights of transgender women and girls and violate Title IX which is a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal funding.
Next – on January 20th the court is going to take up gun rights case called Wolford v Lopez. This case centers around a Hawaiian law that says it’s illegal to carry a handgun on private property without the property owner’s explicit permission…even if you have a conceal carry permit. The 9th circuit court of appeals said yeah – that law stands. You can’t carry a handgun on someone else’s private property especially if that property is open to the public like malls and restaurants. The appellate court established private property as a sensitive area and put it in the same category of other places where you can’t carry – like a government building or a school. Hawaii’s law says gun owners have to assume that they cannot carry their firearm onto someone else’s property and the only way they can – is if the property owner says it’s ok. The law says it’s not the owner’s burden to tell the gun owner no. It’s the gun owner’s burden to seek permission first before entering. Well – gun owners in Hawaii who are challenging this law say that’s not fair and they have a second amendment right to carry where they choose including private property. They say if states can pass laws that restrict where they can carry then their public carry right isn’t a right at all.
The court will hear another gun rights case in 2026 called United States v Hemani. That case is challenging a long-standing and widely used federal law that says individuals who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance cannot have a gun. Well a guy named Ali Danial Hemani said not so fast. He was charged with this crime in 2022. The government said he knew that he was a user of controlled substances and was in possession of a Glock which is a federal crime. Well Hemani said that indictment should be thrown out because one – the second amendment allows him to have a firearm regardless of his alleged drug history and two — the government can’t prove he was high at the time. The fifth circuit court of appeals agreed with Hemani saying that the case against him should be dropped. But that case opens up a much bigger question that the justices will now have to answer – does that federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns violate the second amendment?
On January 21st the supreme court will hear the case of Lisa Cook. She’s the Federal Reserve governor that President Trump tried to fire earlier this year. She challenged her firing saying the law prohibits any president from firing a fed board member unless there is “cause.” Trump alleged she committed mortgage fraud before she was appointed to the fed board. The department of justice has not charged her with mortgage fraud and so those allegations have not been proven in court. Cook argues that an alleged crime that hasn’t been charged and hasn’t been proven in court, that she denies does not count as “cause.” We’ll see what the justices say.
There are two other cases I want to talk about that are going to be huge in 2026. Neither of them have dates set for oral arguments yet.
The justices are going to hear oral arguments and decide the merits of birthright citizenship in a case called Barbara v Trump. As I have been reporting, president trump signed an executive order that says babies born in the United States whose parents are not in this country legally or who are here legally but temporarily do not automatically get American citizenship. Multiple courts have ruled trump’s executive order is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution and have blocked it from being implemented. We’ll see if the supreme court says the same.
The last case I want to call your attention to is a case called Watson v Republican national committee. This case will determine whether your absentee or mail in ballot can be counted after election day. This case centers around a Mississippi law that says mail in ballots can still be counted if they are received by the election office within five business days after election day. The fifth circuit court of appeals said that’s not legal. They ruled all ballots no matter how they’re cast can only be counted if they are received by election day. This decision is going to have huge implications when it comes to the midterm elections and your mail-in or absentee ballot.
I also just want to mention – it is also possible that the supreme court is going to issue their ruling on whether president trump’s tariffs are legal. That case was heard on an emergency basis at the end of 2025 and it’s possible that the ruling could come before the end of the term. I’ll keep you posted on that.
