Rights on Trial: Iside SCOUTUS’s Most Defining Cases Today
- Shaya Eidson
- Jan 20
- 3 min read
By Shaya Eidson
1/20/26
As the strongest court in the nation, the US Supreme Court does far more than interpret the law; it shapes how Americans experience democracy, rights, and daily life. Right now, the Court is weighing cases that directly challenge constitutional power and personal freedom, such as the reach of presidential authority, the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, the integrity of elections, and the limits of government surveillance. Together, these cases highlight how deeply the Court’s decisions can influence the balance between government power and individual rights.
The case of Trump v Cook is addressing presidential immunity from prosecution and the scope of executive power. President Trump attempted to fire Governor Cook after allegations of mortgage fraud. The Supreme Court held oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Cook, testing on what grounds the President can fire officials of the Federal Reserve. The Court may decide the case on procedural grounds, but questions at oral argument indicated concern both on procedural questions and support for the independence of the Federal Reserve. In all events, the case has significant implications for the independence of the Fed and for US businesses. The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear the case of Trump challenging birthright citizenship in his executive order earlier last year. The order has never gone into effect, but if it were to, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are in this country either illegally or temporarily. However, this order conflicts with both the text of the Constitution and the court’s longstanding case law.
The Supreme Court is also hearing cases regarding LGBTQ+ rights, like Little v. Hecox. This is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" (HB 500), a law banning transgender girls and women from women's sports teams. Governor Brad Little is defending the ban against transgender athlete Lindsay Heco,x and others are arguing it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex and gender status. The Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month, considering whether such bans are constitutional, especially after lower courts blocked them. Even though Hecox's specific situation is now moot, the broader constitutional questions still remain. The court has also decided to combine this case with other cases, such as West Virginia v B.P.J in hopes to set a national precedent.
In terms of elections and voting, Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC) is a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Mississippi's law allowing absentee ballots to be counted if received within five business days after election day. The RNC argued federal law requires ballots be received by Election Day, while supporters of the law argue the law protects voters who rely on mail-in ballots, including military, overseas, disabled, older voters, and Native Americans who face unique logistical challenges. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, with arguments expected in 2026, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the RNC, overturning a lower court.
Finally, the Supreme Court is facing cases involving digital privacy, such as Chatrie v. United States, which focuses on whether geofence warrants, warrants allowing police to search Google's "Sensorvault" for all devices in a specific area, violate the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. This is one of the most significant digital privacy cases in years, challenging how law enforcement uses new technology to sweep up data on bystanders to find suspects.
Taken together, the cases before the Supreme Court highlight a pivotal moment for the United States. These decisions will not only resolve legal disputes but also set lasting precedents that could shape the future of our nation. As technology evolves and political divisions deepen, the Court’s rulings will play an important role in defining how constitutional principles are applied in modern society, and how the rights of individuals are protected in the process.
Sources: