Major Decisions Handed Down As Term Concludes
UCLA Law faculty are available to discuss the Court’s most consequential decisions of the term and their implications. In its closing days the Court resolved the closely watched challenges to the termination of Temporary Protected Status and to birthright citizenship, along with rulings on transgender athlete participation and campaign finance
Faculty listed below can speak to the holdings, the reasoning, and what comes next. Contact: media@law.ucla.edu, Carl Marziali, carl@lindavistapr.com, or Geoffrey Baum, geoff@lindavistapr.com, or by email directly to the sources below.
The following cases are ordered by date of oral argument:
General SCOTUS analysis and 24-557 Villarreal v. Texas (right to counsel)
Argued Oct. 6, 2025. Decided Feb. 25, 2026.
Stuart Banner, the Norman Abrams Distinguished Professor of Law and founder and director of UCLA Law’s Supreme Court Clinic, is available for analysis of the term as a whole, the Court’s major themes, and the implications of its rulings. A legal historian and former law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, he can speak to how this term fits within the Court’s longer arc. On Villarreal v. Texas, the Court addressed the Sixth Amendment right to consult with counsel during an overnight recess in the middle of a defendant’s testimony, and faculty can discuss the decision and its consequences for criminal trials. Contact: media@law.ucla.edu
25-A312 Trump v. Cook and 25-332 Trump v. Slaughter (independence of federal agencies)
Trump v. Slaughter argued Dec. 8, 2025, decided June 29, 2026; Trump v. Cook argued Jan. 21, 2026, decided June 29, 2026.
In a pair of decisions on presidential removal power, the Court reached different results. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 majority upheld the President’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and overruled Humphrey’s Executor (1935), expanding the President’s authority to remove officials at independent multi-member agencies. In Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 majority blocked, for now, the President’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, declining to convert the Fed’s for-cause protection into at-will removal. Chief Justice Roberts wrote both opinions. Faculty can discuss the rulings, the separation of powers questions they raise, and their implications for the structure of the federal government.
Jon Michaels is an authority on government ethics and conflicts of interest, bureaucracy and the regulatory state, and can discuss the separation of powers issues in these cases. Contact: michaels@law.ucla.edu
Adam Winkler is an expert in American constitutional law and the separation of powers at the federal level. Contact: winkler@law.ucla.edu
24-621 National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (campaign finance)
Argued Dec. 9, 2025. Decided June 30, 2026.
The Court struck down federal limits on the amount political party committees may spend in coordination with their candidates, overruling its 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II). The ruling holds that coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment and is expected to be consequential for party spending in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. Faculty can discuss the decision, its place in the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence since Citizens United, and its implications for the 2026 cycle.
Richard Hasen is an internationally recognized expert on election law, legislation and statutory interpretation, remedies and torts. He directs UCLA Law’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, a cross-disciplinary and bipartisan group of scholars and activists working to ensure that elections in the U.S. remain free and fair. Contact: hasen@law.ucla.edu
24-38 Little v. Hecox and 24-43 West Virginia v. B.P.J. (transgender athletes)
Argued Jan. 13, 2026. Decided June 30, 2026.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld Idaho and West Virginia laws restricting transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ and women’s school sports, holding that consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, states may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. The decision leaves several questions unresolved, including its application to grammar school, club, and recreational sports. Faculty can discuss the ruling, its relationship to last term’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, and its implications for transgender rights.
Elana Redfield is the federal policy director at the Williams Institute. She is an expert in federal and state policies affecting LGBTQ people, particularly transgender law and policy, and is available to respond to inquiries about the ruling and its implications. Contact: Rachel Dowd, dowd@law.ucla.edu or (310) 206-8982.
24-1046 Wolford v. Lopez and 24-1234 U.S. v. Hemani (gun rights)
Argued Jan. 20, 2026 and Mar. 2, 2026 respectively. Wolford v. Lopez decided June 25, 2026; U.S. v. Hemani decided June 18, 2026.
The Court decided two Second Amendment cases. In Wolford v. Lopez, a 6-3 majority struck down Hawaii’s law prohibiting firearms on private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission, holding the no-carry default rule inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In U.S. v. Hemani, the Court ruled unanimously that the federal law barring drug users from possessing firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, a marijuana user, in a decision the Court described as narrow.
Adam Winkler is an authority on American constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment and constitutional rights and responsibilities. He is quoted frequently on gun rights and restrictions in connection with mass shootings and other issues relating to firearms, and is available to discuss both decisions. Contact: winkler@law.ucla.edu
Trump v. Barbara (birthright citizenship)
Argued Apr. 1, 2026. Decided June 30, 2026.
The Court struck down Executive Order 14160 and upheld birthright citizenship, holding that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, which pointed to the Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Faculty can discuss the holding, its grounding in precedent, and what it means going forward.
Hiroshi Motomura, the Susan Westerberg Prager Distinguished Professor of Law and faculty co-director of the Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law and Policy, is a leading scholar of immigration and citizenship law and is available to respond to inquiries about any birthright citizenship ruling. Contact: Sandra Hernandez, hernandezs@law.ucla.edu, or media@law.ucla.edu
25-1083 Mullin v. Doe and 25-1084 Trump v. Miot (Temporary Protected Status)
Argued Apr. 29, 2026. Decided June 25, 2026.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Department of Homeland Security has broad, largely unreviewable discretion to terminate Temporary Protected Status, allowing the administration to proceed with ending TPS for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The majority also rejected the claim that the Haiti termination was based on racial animus. Faculty can discuss the ruling, its reasoning, and its consequences for hundreds of thousands of TPS holders.
Ahilan Arulanantham, professor from practice and faculty co-director of the Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law and Policy, argued the case on behalf of Syrian TPS holders. He will be available to respond to inquiries following a ruling, and the Center and its partner organizations plan to host a press call at 12 noon Eastern, 9:00 am Pacific on Thur., June 24. Contact: Sandra Hernandez, hernandezs@law.ucla.edu, or media@law.ucla.edu
Additional UCLA Law Experts
UCLA School of Law faculty are available to comment on a wide range of international and domestic legal issues shaping the current landscape, including international law and the law of armed conflict, presidential and executive power, foreign relations law, election regulation, constitutional law, and federal-state relations.
Media Contacts: media@law.ucla.edu
Carl Marziali carl@lindavistapr.com
Geoffrey Baum geoff@lindavistapr.com