The marble steps of the Supreme Court building gleamed under a crisp October sun, a stoic sentinel amid the swirling chaos of Washington. As the justices, including six conservatives forged in the fires of President Donald Trump’s judicial revolution, took their seats for the 2025-26 term, the air hummed with the weight of history. This isn’t just another docket. It’s a referendum on the MAGA mandate, a gauntlet thrown down by a president testing the outer edges of executive might against a court he helped build.

Recommended Stories

• In the fight against Islamism and antisemitism, the British government has picked the wrong side
• The beginnings of renewal: Four years of Restoring America at the Washington Examiner
• Obamacare bankrupts itself

Tariffs that could reshape global trade. A bid to fire a Federal Reserve holdout. Birthright citizenship hanging by a constitutional thread. And that’s before the culture warriors descend on human sexuality, sports fairness, and the raw nerve of election integrity.

For conservatives who’ve long decried a judiciary shackled by liberal activism, this term feels like a first-and-goal chance to punch the ball into the end zone. Trump’s three appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, have tilted the bench 6-3, delivering body blows to the administrative state and cultural overreach. But these advances are in need of one more final push. Chief Justice John Roberts, ever the institutionalist, now faces a series of weighty cases that could cement Trump’s legacy or expose the court’s fractures.

The term begins not with a bang but with a whisper of defiance from the heartland. This month, the justices heard arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a Colorado clash where a Christian therapist’s faith collides with the state’s iron-fisted ban on “conversion therapy.” Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs, isn’t some firebrand preacher. She’s a soft-spoken professional who built her practice on helping families navigate the turbulent waters of adolescence. But when a teenage client sought voluntary talk therapy to explore questions of sexual orientation and gender identity, questions rooted in the girl’s own doubts, not some imposed agenda, Chiles faced a stark choice: Affirm the state’s progressive script, or risk her license.

Colorado’s 2019 law, a darling of the LGBT lobby, prohibits any licensed mental health provider from engaging in practices aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Violators are subject to fines, suspensions, and even license revocation. Chiles sued, arguing that the ban doesn’t just regulate conduct — it censors speech, trampling her First Amendment rights and those of her clients.

Lower courts swatted her down, with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals deeming it mere “professional conduct,” not protected expression. But conservatives see echoes of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the 2023 masterpiece in which the court shielded a web designer from compelled speech endorsing same-sex marriage. Gorsuch, writing then for the majority, thundered that the government can’t “commandeer” private conscience. Will the court extend that shield here? The American Civil Liberties Union warns of a dangerous precedent that could greenlight quackery linked to higher suicide rates among LGBT youth. Nonsense, groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom retort: Major medical bodies oppose conversion therapy, but this isn’t about coercion — it’s about voluntary dialogue, parental rights, and resisting the state’s monopoly on truth.

A win for Chiles wouldn’t just vindicate faith-based counseling. It could crack open doors for more faith-based advocacy nationwide, while also causing other states to reconsider their own conversion therapy bans.

Two cases, Little v. Hecox from Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. from the Mountain State, challenge Republican-backed bans on biological males who identify or are transitioning to female from competing in women’s athletics. Picture this: In Boise, Idaho, Lindsay Hecox, a 50-year-old Navy veteran and recreational runner, sues after Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act bars biological males who’ve transitioned to female from dominating female divisions. Hecox argues it’s unconstitutional discrimination. But the real flashpoint is the plaintiff in B.P.J., a 12-year-old middle schooler named Becky Pepper-Jackson, who transitioned at 8 and dreams of track glory.

West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act blocked Pepper-Jackson from competing, prompting a federal lawsuit. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Pepper-Jackson, but the state appealed. The NCAA counts fewer than 10 transgender collegiate athletes among 500,000, yet the bans ignite fury. Title IX, the 1972 law mandating equal athletic opportunity, looms large. Trump’s team backs the states, citing Bostock v. Clayton County’s textualist limits: sex means biology, not identity. Liberals invoke equal protection, warning of a rollback to segregated fields.

These aren’t abstract debates. They’re locker-room reckonings for Title IX’s promise. A doubleheader win for red states could fortify 27 similar laws, preserving scholarships and podiums for biological females. Lose, and the floodgates open — conservatives fear a zero-sum game where Title IX becomes “Trans IX.”

Shifting from culture to commerce, Nov. 5 brings Learning Resources Inc. v. United States, a turbocharged tariff tussle that could make or break Trump’s economic blitzkrieg. Remember the Rose Garden fanfare? On April 2, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to slap 25% duties on $3 trillion in imports — steel from China, cars from Mexico, and widgets from everywhere.

Small businesses and blue-state attorneys general cried foul. A toy importer in Ohio sued, arguing that the IEEPA targets sanctions and seizures, not trade wars. Three circuits agreed: Trump overreached; no “emergency” justified the pain. Enter the Supreme Court, expedited like a national security sprint. Kavanaugh, a tariff skeptic in foreign affairs, hinted at reluctance to wield the major questions doctrine here. Roberts, haunted by Obamacare’s ghost, might balk at kneecapping a signature policy. But textualists such as Gorsuch could eviscerate the precedent, affirming broad executive latitude. At stake are trillions in trade and next year’s midterm elections, when Rust Belt voters will pass their own judgment on Trump’s trade policies.

The throughline of most of the court’s cases this term is presidential power, and no case pulses with it like Trump v. Cook, which will be argued in January 2026. Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, a Biden holdover, became Trump’s piñata. Accused of mortgage fraud, Cook refused Trump’s pleas for rate cuts, provoking Trump to move to oust her.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals blocked her removal, citing the Fed’s “uniquely structured” independence. Now, the court weighs permanence — perhaps torching Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the New Deal relic shielding agencies from political whims. Roberts greenlit Trump’s firing of National Labor Relations Board Chairwoman Gwynne Wilcox, but the Fed’s quasi-private aura gives pause. A Trump win would mean that the central bank can bend to White House winds. A Trump loss would be a rare check on MAGA’s administrative state purge.

Elections, the court’s eternal specter, flank these fights. Oct. 8’s Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections probes mail-in madness: Can Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-IL) challenge Illinois’s rule counting late-arriving ballots? A narrow ruling could tighten the 2026 midterm elections, curbing the “fortress Democrat” edge in big states.

Then, the Louisiana voting map redux: Allen v. Milligan II, reargued in October after last term’s deadlock. At stake is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, mandating fair minority representation. Louisiana’s second black-majority district, drawn after the 2020 census, faces erasure under a GOP push to blind race in redistricting. Liberals such as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defend the VRA’s guardrails. Conservatives, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, eye its obsolescence. Strike it down, and GOP maps multiply, bolstering House majorities but fueling leftist cries of voter suppression.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission will test campaign finance fetters. Vice President JD Vance challenges caps on super PAC coordination, arguing they stifle speech. Echoing Citizens United v. FEC, a deregulatory win could flood 2028 with dark money and empower outsiders over incumbents.

Looming largest may be Trump’s Day One decree ending birthright citizenship, via Executive Order 14160, in which the president sought to put an end to the “anchor babies” phenomenon. Lower courts nationwide enjoined it, but June’s Trump v. CASA, Inc. curbed universal injunctions. The administration petitioned for full review. A Trump win would upend United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and would allow the president to further curb illegal immigration.

As the gavel falls on these battles, the big picture sharpens: What does this term portend for Trump’s presidency, the MAGA movement, and Roberts’s complicated legacy?

For Trump, it’s make-or-break on executive latitude. If his power to enact tariffs is upheld, he’ll be allowed to create his hoped-for trade fortress, validating his gut over Davos elites. If his Fed firing is greenlit, he may be able to remake monetary policy in his image, turbocharging growth but tempting inflation’s demons. If birthright citizenship is axed, even more illegal immigrants would be deterred from attempting to cross the border. But Roberts’s caution, most memorably on display in his salvaging of Obamacare, could still clip Trump’s wings on some issues, especially if he can get one of the court’s conservatives to join him in restraining the president.

The court’s 2025-26 cases are not only pivotal for Trump — they could also be monumental for the fate of the MAGA movement as well. These cases are litmus tests for the movement’s core: sovereignty, family, and fairness. A win in Chiles, following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, would fortify the “protect women and children” banner, rallying evangelicals and suburban mothers weary of gender chaos. A win in Bost would energize the base for midterm elections in which House control teeters. Yet overreach risks backlash, alienating moderates if the court veers too theocratic or plutocratic. The term could galvanize the faithful or splinter the coalition, especially if Roberts brokers compromises that dilute Trump’s edge.

BIG TECH’S MEA CULPA EXPOSES THE LEFT’S SELECTIVE OUTRAGE ON FREE SPEECH

As for the chief justice, the architect of the “minimalist” court now shepherds a maximalist majority. His immunity gift to Trump was a masterstroke of realpolitik, but this term demands more: balancing institutional heft against populist fervor. Triumphs in power and culture would cement him as conservatism’s quiet colossus, outshining William Rehnquist’s shadow, but could also invite impeachment howls from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) “Squad.” At 70, with Barrett poised to become his ideological heir, Roberts eyes history: Will he be the umpire who called balls and strikes, or the enabler who let the game run wild?

In the end, this term is about a presidency and a country at a crossroads. A court true to its conservative compass could deliver the tools for renewal: secure borders, sound money, and sacred liberties. Botch it, and the deep state laughs last. As the justices deliberate, one thing’s clear: Trump’s America demands a court with the courage to match his. The nation watches, holding its breath.

Daniel Ross Goodman is a Washington Examiner contributing writer, the author of three books, and the Allen and Joan Bildner Visiting Scholar at Rutgers University.