On June 30, 2026, the final day opinions in argued cases for the October 2025 Term were issued, the Court held in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (No. 24-43) and Little v. Hecox (No. 24-38) that state laws limiting participation on women’s and girls’ athletic teams based on biological sex do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and Justice Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. While some have reported the Court’s decision as a 6-3 split, that is not technically accurate. All nine Justices unanimously decided that the state laws barring transgender women and girls from female sports teams did not violate Title IX. The Court concluded that the term “sex” in Title IX refers to biological sex and that its implementing regulations allow schools to maintain separate teams for biological males and females. While the agreement on Title IX was unanimous, the Justices split 6-3 regarding the Constitution, with the majority ruling that the bans also did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332) that statutory restrictions limiting the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) violate Article II of the Constitution. By a 6–3 vote, the Court overruled its nearly ninety-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, concluding that Congress may not insulate FTC Commissioners from presidential removal through a “for-cause” removal provision. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in full and by Justice Thomas except as to Part III. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The decision marks one of the Court’s most significant separation of powers rulings in decades, substantially expanding presidential control over independent executive agencies while narrowing the constitutional foundation for statutory removal protections.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Cook (No. 25A312) that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook may remain in office pending litigation challenging her removal proceedings. By a 5–4 vote, the Court declined to stay a preliminary injunction preserving Cook’s position, concluding that the government had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted before the merits of the dispute could be fully litigated. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion. 

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a separate concurrence, joined in part by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissent, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. In other words, the Court decided the case by both a 6-3 and a 5-4 margin, depending on the specific legal grounds: 5-4 on the core constitutional question of whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens; 6-3 on whether the executive order violated federal (statutory) law, with Justice Kavanaugh joining the constitutional majority to invalidate the President’s policy on statutory grounds.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6–3 in Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112) that law enforcement’s acquisition of Google Location History through a geofence warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.” Importantly, however, the Court did not hold that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional. Instead, after concluding that the Government conducted a Fourth Amendment search, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the particular warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

As signaled in Dykema’s March 2026 edition, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, II (No. 24-1238) arises from a highway accident in which Petitioner Montgomery was struck by a vehicle operated by an employee of Respondent Caribe Transport II, LLC, which had been selected by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker that arranged the shipment. The case asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts common law negligent selection claims against freight brokers.

On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83) that a federal court that stays a case pending arbitration under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitration award, even if the post-arbitration motions would not independently satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction. Justice Sotomayor authored the Court’s unanimous opinion. The decision clarifies that a stay under § 3 suspends—rather than terminates—the federal action, allowing the district court to supervise the arbitration through its conclusion.