May is coming to a close which means the U.S. The Supreme Court is entering one of the busiest and most observed periods of its term. In the coming weeks, the Court is expected to release several major decisions that could shape national debates on immigration, privacy, civil rights, and presidential power for years to come. Here are five Supreme Court cases Americans should keep an eye on before the justices conclude their term this summer: 1. Birthright Citizenship One of the most closely watched cases involves President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action. At the center of the dispute is a constitutional question: how much authority does a president have to reinterpret a long-established understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment without action from Congress or a constitutional amendment? Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The case will ultimately decide whether children born in the United States to certain non-citizen parents are automatically granted citizenship under that provision, which could impact future debates and immigration policy nationwide. The decision may also address a separate but still significant issue: whether federal judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies while legal challenges are pending. 2. Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports Another closely observed case involves state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that restrict transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “It is not gender-identity discrimination at all, much less sex discrimination.” Supporters argue that the law helps preserve competitive fairness in women’s athletics, while opponents contend they unfairly discriminate against transgender students. Although these cases originate in only two states, the Court’s decision could set a precedent for the legality of similar restrictions nationwide. This ruling may determine whether such laws in over two dozen states remain enforceable or become vulnerable to legal challenges, thus affecting student athletes and local policy across the country. But as debates over gender identity, athletics, and equal protection continue across the country, the Court’s decisions could be among the most significant rulings affecting school sports in years. 3. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Immigrants Another case involves Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a federal program that allows immigrants from countries experiencing war, natural disasters, or other irregular circumstances to temporarily live and work in the United States. Created in Congress in 1990, TPS does not provide a path to citizenship, but it does protect recipients from deportation while conditions in their home remain unsafe. The Court is reviewing challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to end TPS for immigrants from Haiti and Syria. The key legal question here is can courts review a president’s decision to end TPS, or does the executive branch have the higher authority in this scenario? The case could affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have built lives in the U.S. More than 330,000 Haitians and thousands of Syrians—out of about 1.3 million people in the broader program—rely on TPS protections. While the immediate dispute focuses on Haiti and Syria, the Court’s decision could set a standard for how easily future presidents can end TPS designations for other countries, affecting the stability and planning of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who depend on this protection. 4. Cell Phone Location Data and Privacy In an era when smartphones track much of our daily movement, the Supreme Court is considering a case with significant implications for digital privacy. The dispute centers on what legal steps law enforcement must take before obtaining a person’s cellphone location data and whether existing protections are sufficient in the age of modern technology. The issue has become increasingly relevant in recent years as police departments have relied on so-called “geofence warrants” during criminal investigations. These warrants allow law enforcement to request location data from devices that were present in a specific area at a specific time, whether investigating a major crime or a more routine offense. Critics argue that while these warrants can help identify suspects, they may also collect data from dozens or even hundreds of innocent people who happened to be nearby. As a result, the Court must consider whether collecting large amounts of location data from many people constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Its decision could redefine digital privacy standards and limit or expand police access to data in future investigations. 5. Presidential Firing Power Now, you may not know the names Lisa Cook or Rebecca Slaughter, but chances are you have seen the headlines about President Donald Trump attempting to remove multiple officials from independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve or the Federal Trade Commission. Now, while presidents have long had the ability to appoint and remove many government officials, the Court is now considering whether that power extends to leaders of these independent agencies that Congress designed to operate with a degree of political independence. The dispute stems from Trump’s efforts to remove officials from agencies whose leaders have traditionally been protected from dismissal without cause. Supporters argue that, because these agencies are part of the executive branch, the president should have the authority to remove officials who implement federal policy. Opponents contend that allowing presidents to freely dismiss independent agency leaders could undermine the agencies’ ability to operate free from political pressure. This case goes beyond individual officials—it could redefine the degree of presidential control over independent federal agencies in both Republican and Democratic administrations and thus affect how agencies operate free from political influence. The Court’s decision could impact how checks and balances function in future governments. As the Supreme Court approaches the end of its term, Americans can expect decisions on several of the year’s most closely watched cases, with filings likely to be released before the Fourth of July. From birthright citizenship and immigration protections to
By Alan Jimenez
On May 26th, incumbent Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) lost re-election to challenger Ken Paxton in a runoff of March’s Texas primaries. This news delighted nobody more than James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Cornyn’s seat. Paxton is a scandal-plagued Texas Attorney General who, in 2023, was impeached on 20 articles by a Republican-controlled Texas State House . Though his approval ratings have since recovered to his pre-impeachment levels, which are still quite low (his current approval is a mere 34%), he has an unshakable reputation of corruption. Paxton is a political liability, and Talarico, a Democrat trying to win in a red state, should feel much better about his chances against Paxton than against Cornyn. Immediately after Paxton was officially called the winner, Cook Political Report shifted the Senate race’s marker from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican.” Though this still positions Talarico as an underdog, he now finds himself in striking distance of the Republicans, energizing Democratic donors in their effort to flip the Senate blue. More interesting than how Talarico’s numbers responded in the immediate aftermath of Paxton’s victory is how Talarico himself responded. Before saying anything about Paxton, he posted this to his X page: One tweet is not likely to move the needle for many voters, but this kind of across-the-aisle messaging is the right choice. This bipartisan strategy may have backfired for the left in 2024, when Democrats received internal flak for trying to appeal to traditional Republicans with campaign appearances from Liz Cheney, but that certainly should not be taken as a cautionary tale for James Talarico. Unlike Harris, who ran a national campaign, Talarico is running for Senate in a red state. Winning a Republican electorate means winning Republican votes. Opting to attract conservative voters rather than simply energizing the left wing of the Democratic base is not a choice in Texas, it is a necessity. Where Talarico runs into danger of repeating the past mistakes of Democrats is his rhetoric on Paxton. After posting the above tweet, Talarico released a video in which he calls Paxton “the most corrupt politician in America.” He then announced a tour of rallies titled “The People vs. Ken Paxton Tour,” invoking the language of court cases in a clear attempt to remind voters of Ken Paxton’s legal troubles. Talarico, like many Democrats before him trying to navigate this populist era, is painting his race as a morally significant standoff between good and evil rather than as a politically significant standoff between left and right. A morally charged framing may be the most accurate portrayal of what Texas’s Senate race has become, but that does not make the framing politically advantageous. Democrats used this sort of virtue-signaling rhetoric against President Trump in 2024. They frequently invoked Trump’s status as a convicted felon and, as they had done in past election cycles, referred to their fight against Trump as “the most important election of our lifetime.” All Trump had to do to counter this was portray himself as a fighter against the political elite, and, disturbingly, that was enough for Republicans to shrug off Trump’s criminal status as a left-wing sham and it was enough for the country to re-elect him to the Presidency. If relying on Republican corruption was not enough for Democrats in 2024, why would it be enough for them in 2026? James Talarico’s messaging on Paxton carries the stench of Kamala Harris’s failure. However, Talarico is admittedly using this messaging in a different context. Ken Paxton’s crimes are closer to home, and therefore perhaps more real, for Texans than Donald Trump’s New York trial. Though, even this has its pitfalls for Talarico. If all of Texas knows that Paxton is corrupt, do the voters need the reminder? Texans do not need help deciding which candidate is more corrupt if they already have their answer. They need help deciding which candidate will make their lives easier. That should be the focus of Talarico’s message, rather than the virtue-signaling that destroyed Kamala Harris.
By Jack Jurjans
Being a “fixer” is a catch-22. Work marked by altruism and advocacy seems admirable and often has a benign beginning. The problem with profiting off recompense is that the relevance of the fixer depends upon the prevalence of the injustice. As the inner workings of the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) came to light in April 2026, we are reminded that reform and corruption can be two sides of the same coin. The year 2020 is shrouded in infamy, and for good reason, as the world seemed to collectively burst with rage. Burdened with isolation, the online space became an outlet for restless souls deprived of real-life interaction. Among the range of niche communities that emerged on social media platforms, notable uproar came from one domain in particular: racial injustice. From protests surrounding the death of George Floyd to the destruction of historical statues, grievances that had long simmered reached their boiling point. As a high school senior graduating in 2020, I had a front-row seat to the digitized wrath unleashed across my feed. Peers, creators, celebrities, and institutions alike abandoned their usual content to declare solidarity with racial minorities, proving their allegiance by posting a black square. What was commonly referred to as “wokeism” took on a new form, fueling riots and compiling a catalog of buzzwords such as “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “cultural appropriation,” and “microaggressions.” Innocent actions were suddenly assumed to be sinister, such as complimenting a minority’s hairstyle or engaging in baseline patriotic acts like waving the American flag on the Fourth of July. Political discourse had always been contentious. Avoiding politics and religion has long been considered social etiquette due to the historic division both subjects inspire. Yet partisan polarization now seemed to exceed all social norms. Rising with brazen hostility, the public square held little separation between the personal and the political. Those with preexisting leanings found satisfaction in their most extreme forms, and though the novel chaos of 2020 subsided over the last six years, racial tensions have persisted alongside the crusade for reparations. While advocacy for racial equity can be found in online outrage, political jargon, and institutional statements, one nonprofit organization has long been a pillar of civil rights litigation: the Southern Poverty Law Center. The organization heralds itself as a “defender of racial justice” and claims to combat a multitude of social inequities. Offering resources across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the SPLC presents itself as the ultimate advocate for the historically oppressed. Anyone who navigates to the SPLC website will encounter a multitude of related causes, including “dismantling white supremacy” and “ending unjust imprisonment.” Regardless of whether you consider yourself a social justice warrior or align with the conservative skeptic, nothing about this NGO’s existence is shocking, nor is its philosophy novel. But the indictment reportedly charged against the SPLC by a federal grand jury should be buzzworthy across party lines. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Public Affairs issued a press release on April 21, 2026, detailing charges against the SPLC. The statement cites eleven counts of wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Beyond enriching itself, the SPLC’s alleged criminality reportedly benefited the most unlikely of parties: Klansmen. The DOJ press release expanded on the investigation’s findings, reporting: “According to the indictment, starting in the 1980s, the SPLC began operating a covert network of individuals who were either associated with violent and extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction. Unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.” The SPLC has unsurprisingly pleaded not guilty to the charges, framing them as a vindictive move by the Trump administration. In both the prosecution and the defense, the same insight can be gathered: extremism is not encouraged for the sake of public interest. Grievance culture has paralyzed young adults—more so on the left in decades past—but the “woke right” has stumbled into its own sense of victimhood in recent years. The rationality of political campaign slogans now seems to carry little more substance than conspiratorial influencers such as those featured in the hit Netflix documentary The Manosphere. The rhetoric propelled by the SPLC is one of victimhood, fatalism, and ever-increasing threat, while the fringe right points fingers at Jewish communities and unidentified pedophile rings supposedly run by the elite. While the subject of blame differs across the political spectrum, both ends identify with deep disillusionment. Consistent on either extreme is the incrimination of “the system,” as well as a widespread urge to distrust the powerful. From millennials to Gen Z, the line between advocacy and identification with the problem itself has become increasingly thin. Embracing the “victim mindset” has been a popular subject of authorship and research, and cultural terminology like “victim Olympics” speaks to the phenomenon in which suffering is coveted. Author Charles Sykes posits in his book A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Character that victim mentalities are partially rooted in an entitled expectation of happiness. But they also emerge at the group level. An article in Scientific American summarizes a key finding from corresponding research: “A strong sense of collective victimhood is associated with a low willingness to forgive and an increased desire for revenge. This finding has been replicated in diverse contexts, including thinking of the Holocaust, the conflict in Northern Ireland and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”—and arguably in the rhetoric of the SPLC. The organization, much like individuals who adopt a victim mentality, appears to hinge on the severity of racial injustice rather than the reversal of it. The SPLC’s very existence is threatened if the cause it champions loses relevance. Input from such institutions contributes to the “socialization process,” referring to learned victim beliefs. Drawing again from psychological findings, Scientific American notes the consequences of perpetual victimhood:
By Mia Downing
Follow Us