The U.S. Supreme Court, as the nation’s highest judicial body, plays a pivotal role in shaping the interpretation of the Constitution, federal law, and the legal landscape as a whole. As the Court prepares for the second half of its 2025–2026 term, it has granted several significant cases for review, which are expected to have wide-ranging implications on areas like birthright citizenship, habeas corpus, civil rights, and labor law. Understanding the cases that are on the Court’s docket provides essential insight into the Court’s priorities and its approach to pressing legal questions.
This article explores some of the most important cases currently pending before the Supreme Court and the potential impact their decisions could have on legal doctrine and practice across the United States.
1. Birthright Citizenship: United States v. Doe
One of the most contentious cases on the 2026 docket revolves around the birthright citizenship issue, a topic that has sparked national debate for years. The case, United States v. Doe, challenges the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
At the heart of this case is whether a child born on U.S. soil to parents who are undocumented immigrants should retain the automatic right to citizenship. This case could potentially reshape the Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, reversing a century of precedent that has firmly established birthright citizenship as a cornerstone of American law. Legal experts have noted that any shift in this interpretation would not only affect the future of millions of individuals but also deeply influence the broader debate over immigration reform.
The Supreme Court’s decision could clarify whether the historical precedent established by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed birthright citizenship, remains valid in light of evolving immigration policies and political pressures.
2. Habeas Corpus and National Security: Al-Mansour v. United States
Another case that could redefine critical legal boundaries involves habeas corpus, the constitutional right to challenge unlawful detention. In Al-Mansour v. United States, the Supreme Court will examine whether individuals detained under national security concerns, specifically, detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, retain the right to file for habeas corpus relief, despite assertions of national security interests.
This case has drawn attention due to its implications on the balance between national security powers and individual rights. For years, detainees held in military detention have fought for the right to challenge their confinement, arguing that indefinite detention without trial violates constitutional protections. However, the executive branch, citing security concerns, has pushed back against such challenges, claiming that national security risks should limit judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have profound implications on the scope of judicial review in national security matters and could establish new precedents for the balance of power between the branches of government, especially in the context of military detention and counterterrorism operations.
3. Civil Rights and Employment Discrimination: Smith v. Google
The Court has also agreed to hear a case involving employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically regarding online platform employers. In Smith v. Google, an employee claims that the company discriminated against him on the basis of his religious beliefs by imposing policies that required employees to attend diversity training and participate in activities that he believes contradict his faith.
This case raises significant questions about how anti-discrimination laws apply in the tech industry, especially in light of the growing influence of online platforms and their evolving corporate cultures. Legal scholars have long debated how traditional civil rights frameworks, like Title VII, should extend to the digital workforce, and this case may provide clarity on whether or not companies like Google are subject to the same employment discrimination protections as traditional businesses in the non-digital sector.
A decision from the Court could set new guidelines for how employers balance their internal policies, employee rights, and protections against workplace discrimination, an area that has gained increased scrutiny in recent years as the digital economy continues to expand.
4. Labor Law: Epic Systems v. FedEx
Another critical case before the Court this term concerns labor rights and the enforceability of arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Epic Systems v. FedEx presents a scenario where employees claim that FedEx forced them into arbitration for disputes related to wage theft and violations of labor law, without the ability to pursue class action lawsuits.
The central issue is whether employers can compel employees to arbitrate claims individually, stripping away the right to collective legal action, or whether such arbitration clauses violate National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protections. Previous rulings on similar issues have led to conflicting outcomes in lower courts, and the Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to establish a nationwide standard on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment disputes.
The potential impact of this case is profound, especially in a labor market increasingly dominated by gig economy jobs and contract work. A ruling that upholds the enforceability of such arbitration clauses could significantly diminish workers’ ability to hold employers accountable through collective legal action.
5. Privacy and Technology: The People v. Meta
Finally, the Court has granted review in a high-profile case involving privacy rights in the digital age. The People v. Meta centers around the question of whether tech companies, such as Meta (formerly Facebook), can be held liable for privacy violations stemming from the misuse of user data. The case arises from allegations that Meta mishandled personal information, violated users’ privacy rights, and failed to provide adequate consent mechanisms for third-party data usage.
As tech companies face increasing scrutiny over data privacy practices, this case will likely establish critical precedents for privacy law in the digital environment. A ruling in favor of consumers could lead to significant changes in how online platforms collect and share user data, reinforcing user control over their personal information and establishing stronger safeguards in data protection laws.
Legal Implications and What to Expect
As these cases progress through the Supreme Court, legal professionals and stakeholders across various sectors will be closely watching their outcomes. The Court’s decisions could shift foundational principles in areas such as birthright citizenship, habeas corpus, civil rights, employment law, and data privacy.
These cases highlight the Court’s increasing role in addressing modern legal challenges that intersect with rapidly evolving social, technological, and political landscapes. Whether the outcome is narrow or expansive in its legal interpretation, the decisions are likely to set important precedents that will influence U.S. law for years to come.
As the term progresses, attorneys, policymakers, and the public will be closely attuned to the Court’s reasoning and its alignment with evolving societal needs. For legal practitioners, understanding these developments is crucial for anticipating future rulings and preparing for their wide-ranging effects.
