"All Eyes on the Supremes: The 2026 Supreme Court Cases to Watch"

Podcast: Here’s the Scoop (NBC News)
Host: Yasmin Vossoughian
Guests: Laura Jarrett (Senior Legal Correspondent) & Lawrence Hurley (Senior Supreme Court Reporter)
Date: December 29, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Yasmin Vossoughian is joined by Laura Jarrett and Lawrence Hurley to break down the most consequential cases before the U.S. Supreme Court as the nation moves into 2026—especially in the context of President Trump’s second term. The discussion dissects upcoming rulings with broad political and social implications, focusing on presidential power, the independence of federal agencies, birthright citizenship, gerrymandering, election cases, and a slate of LGBTQ-related cases. Underlining the conversation is concern for the Court’s legacy and its perceived legitimacy in an increasingly fractured political landscape.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Supreme Court’s Political Moment & Trump’s Impact (01:01–03:25)

• The current Supreme Court term—first full term of Trump’s second presidency—features cases testing the limits of presidential power more starkly than ever before.

• Laura Jarrett describes Trump as putting the Court in a "trick box" by constantly "testing boundaries" beyond what prior presidents attempted.

  “Donald Trump puts the Supreme Court in a trick box because he has so pushed the envelope on presidential power...The Supreme Court has a big test for itself this term…Does it set up some guardrails or does it say ‘nope, we're gonna pretend Donald Trump is just any other president’?”
  — Laura Jarrett (02:09)

Notable Presidential Power Cases:

• Tariffs imposed by Trump
• Independence/firing of federal agency heads, e.g., firing of Lisa Cook (Federal Reserve)

2. Reading the Tea Leaves: Court Behavior and Potential Rulings (03:25–05:37)

• The Supreme Court’s conservative lean doesn’t guarantee Trump victories on all issues.

• Firing Agency Heads: Likely to side with Trump; aligns with conservative legal movement’s longstanding objectives (03:43).

• Tariffs: More skepticism from the Court, as traditional conservatives support free trade, not tariffs (04:16).

  “The tariffs is a different ballgame...the conservative justices seemed a lot more skeptical when they heard arguments. That might be one that goes the other way.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (04:16)

• Complications in unwinding policies already in effect, especially given potential financial clawbacks (04:47).

3. Precedent, Immunity, and the Long Shadow of Trump (05:19–07:44)

• Many Trump actions have few precedents, making rulings on immunity and agency firings monumental for future presidencies.

• The justices struggle between crafting rules “to stand the test of time” (Neil Gorsuch, referenced at 05:45) or acting with the immediate president in mind.

  “He [Trump] poses a trickiness for them that is so hard to get around...Even if a president could potentially have immunity for criminal acts, does that mean, like, presidents going forward are just going to commit crimes because they know now the Supreme Court has done that? I don’t think so.”
  — Laura Jarrett (06:44)

• Shadow docket decisions allow for immediate actions with long-term, real-world implications and less transparency, leading to unsettling interim outcomes (07:44–08:33).

4. The Next Phase: From Interim Orders to Full Merits Rulings (08:33–10:02)

• 2025 saw many lower-profile, interim rulings mostly benefiting the administration.

• 2026 will bring definitive, merits-based decisions on high-stakes cases (e.g., tariffs, agency firings, birthright citizenship).

  “Maybe the story in 2026 might be a little different.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (10:02)

5. Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Litmus Test (10:02–11:23)

• Trump’s push to redefine birthright citizenship challenges long-settled interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

• Both legal correspondents stress the unprecedented nature and “fringe” history of this legal theory.

  “I don’t know what that opinion looks like to say the Constitution doesn’t say what it says...this was seen as, like, bonkers.”
  — Laura Jarrett (10:19)

  “Not a single court has ruled against...the understanding of the 14th Amendment that we’ve had for 150 years.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (10:46)

6. Redistricting & Election Year Stakes (13:06–15:06)

• 2026 is an election year where congressional maps take center stage.

• Court's acceptance of Texas Republican gerrymandering draws attention to potential hypocrisy if blue states are not allowed similar latitude.

• A pending Louisiana Voting Rights Act case could open floodgates for new redistricting efforts, likely benefiting the GOP.

  “If they’re going to rule differently over California than they did over Texas, then that would clearly look a little odd to a lot of people…Depending on what happen[s], that could lead to Republicans picking up quite a few seats…and eliminating a lot of minority members of Congress.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (14:23)

7. LGBTQ Policy Cases: State Power and Free Speech (15:06–17:20)

Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports

• Central legal issue: whether states can ban transgender women from women’s sports without violating equal protection or Title IX.

  “There’s some language from a Gorsuch opinion...that makes you think like, no, treating transgender women differently could raise a sex discrimination claim that even the conservatives on this court might have a problem with.”
  — Laura Jarrett (15:26)

Conversion Therapy Bans

• Framed as a free speech case: Can states restrict therapists from offering conversion therapy, or is that an improper limit on professional speech?

  “The legal question is actually a free speech question...And it kind of seemed from oral argument, that’s how this one would go as well.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (16:14)

8. Partisanship, Legitimacy, and the Court’s Legacy (17:20–20:40)

• Public perception and the Court’s credibility weigh heavily on the Chief Justice and some other members.

  “The Court’s legitimacy only goes as far as the public's perception of it. That’s how their rulings get enforced…The Supreme Court, as people always say, has no troops to enforce its rulings.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (17:46)

• The justices’ concern over being seen as partisan or contributing to the erosion of public trust is “interesting,” especially in the language they choose for opinions and dissents.

  “That’s why it’s interesting to see when and in what context they try to slide some of that language into their opinions, especially when they have some sort of biting dissent.”
  — Laura Jarrett (18:52)

• Internal dissent and the public’s indifference to intra-court relationships, but still a concern for justices trying to uphold the tradition of a high-minded, congenial Court (18:58–19:47).

• The judiciary as a whole is divided, with lower court judges critical of the Supreme Court’s approach in recent high-stakes cases.

  “It’s going to be interesting to see going forward whether there’s more of a united front…because at the moment, it’s kind of a house divided.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (20:04)

Memorable Quotes

• “Donald Trump puts the Supreme Court in a trick box because he has so pushed the envelope on presidential power.”
  — Laura Jarrett (02:09)

• “The Supreme Court…has no troops to enforce its rulings. It’s the president and the states that have that kind of enforcement power.”
  — Lawrence Hurley (17:46)

• “For something like tariffs, that's more interesting. For something like, can you fire the heads of federal agencies that had been viewed as quasi independent? That's something president might want to do going forward.”
  — Laura Jarrett (06:58)

Segment Timestamps

• 01:01 — Supreme Court term context; overview of Trump-era cases
• 02:09 — Trump’s presidential power as a “test box” for the Supreme Court
• 03:43 — Predicting outcomes: agency firings vs. tariffs
• 05:45 — Precedents and crafting “timeless” rules
• 07:44 — The “shadow docket” and its implications
• 08:33 — Shift from interim to full rulings in 2026
• 10:02 — Birthright citizenship case and constitutional challenges
• 13:06 — Redistricting battles and political ramifications
• 15:26 — LGBTQ cases: transgender athletes, conversion therapy, and state power
• 17:46 — Legitimacy and partisanship: the Court’s legacy
• 20:04 — The Court’s relation to lower federal judiciary

Final Thoughts

The Supreme Court’s 2026 docket promises to shape—perhaps redefine—not just the court’s reputation, but the very contours of American governance and civil rights. From presidential powers to voting rights, and LGBTQ protections, the justices are poised to deliver rulings that will echo for generations. The episode closes with a sense of anticipation: the Court’s choices this year may well decide the legitimacy and endurance of its own institutional standing in American life.