The US Supreme Court Prepares to Issue a Series of Rulings Against Voting Rights and LGBTQ.

According to Vox: In the US Supreme Court, which will begin its proceedings next week, the main topics of discussion will be three cases already agreed upon for consideration. However, in reality, especially in two of them, one can hardly expect changes in the rulings.

The biggest uncertainty surrounds the question of whether the Court will strike down the tariffs proposed by President Donald Trump - this question will be resolved in November. The tariffs appear to be clearly illegal according to the principles invoked by Republican judges to block many initiatives of President Joe Biden. Many leading conservatives oppose these tariffs, and some of them are participants in this case. However, the Republican majority in the Court rarely deviates from Trump’s course.

The other two groups of cases related to voting legislation and LGBTQ issues appear to be less convoluted.

“The Supreme Court, as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent in 2021, 'has not done any statute a greater disservice' than the Voting Rights Act — a law prohibiting racial discrimination in voting.”

In the near future, Republican judges are expected to strengthen this provision — striking down long-standing safeguards of the Voting Rights Act against racial gerrymandering. This will happen at a time when President Donald Trump is actively pushing Republican legislators to gerrymander their states to block the Democratic Party.

The Court is likely also to continue the traditional practice of Republican judges: dismantling campaign finance regulations. One of the few laws that has historically enjoyed the support of even a majority of Republican judges is the cap on contributions in primary elections. For example, in the 2026 election cycle, congress members may receive no more than $3,500 from each donor.

In the case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, Republican judges are likely to find a loophole that effectively allows donors to give tens of thousands of dollars to individual candidates, increasing the opportunities for wealthy donors to exchange money for favors.

Another significant topic likely to be lost in the upcoming term may be the interests of the LGBTQ community. The Court is expected to strike down bans on 'conversion therapy' — a method that seeks to suppress the sexual orientation or gender identity of patients.

Cases on Tariffs: Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources v. Trump

If you’ve been following US economic policy or business news recently, you are probably familiar with the tariff cases. Trump imposed significant and partially alterable taxes on goods imported to the US. Many federal judges have found that these tariffs are illegal. The Court will decide in the upcoming term whether to agree with this.

Trump argues that the tariffs are permissible under federal law, which gives the president the right 'to regulate... agreements concerning any property in which any other country or national has an interest.' However, this law allows such power only in cases of 'unusual and extraordinary threat.'

Plaintiffs challenging the tariffs make several arguments against them, stating that the ability 'to regulate' imports does not include the ability to tax them, and that Trump has not cited any 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that could justify the tariffs.

Gerrymandering Cases: Louisiana v. Callais

In 2023, the Supreme Court shocked many by stating that Alabama must redraw its congressional maps to include an additional majority-black district. However, Milligan is expected to remain a singular case, and Louisiana v. Callais, similar to Milligan, is set to be heard on October 15.

A decision to strike down safeguards established by the Voting Rights Act could have catastrophic consequences for the representation of black voters in red states.

Campaign Financing Cases: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC

In the ruling in the case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Court established that corporations may spend unlimited funds to influence elections in the US. Now Republicans are asking the Court to liberalize the ban on coordinated expenditures.

Transgender Cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

The cases related to transgender issues concern legislation that prohibits transgender athletes from competing on teams that correspond to their gender identity.

Conversion Therapy: Chiles v. Salazar

About half of the states in the US have legislation that restricts 'conversion therapy' — a method aimed at changing the gender identity or sexual orientation of patients.

Execution of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: Hamm v. Smith

The case Hamm v. Smith concerns how far judges may go to reduce rulings, such as Atkins, which prohibits the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Voting Cases: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

The Court will consider whether plaintiffs can file suit to invalidate numerous ballots in states that allow mail-in voting.

The aforementioned cases have already been confirmed for consideration by the Court. It is expected that several more important cases related to Trump’s mass firings and his use of law enforcement will join them.

Even without these additional cases, the 2025-2026 term is already promising to be extremely significant for the US, as the Court's rulings could greatly impact the country's political and social landscape.