New Supreme Court Term Considers Limits on American Fascism
The 2025-2026 Supreme Court term is underway, complete with cases testing the limits of presidential authority and the Court’s appetite for American fascism. At stake is the balance of power between the three branches of government, and between the federal government and the people it’s meant to serve.
Given the increased polarization of the Court and the country, this term puts us at another critical crossroads. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court will consider the president’s authority to fire independent agency members, such as those on the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.
Among the most notable individuals Trump has attempted to fire is Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. As has become his new MO, Trump accused Cook of mortgage fraud as a part of the rationale for firing her. Unlike Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the Court declined to permit Trump to terminate Cook and added his appeal for a hearing in January 2026.
In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court will rehear arguments concerning the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana. Now, 60 years after the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and 160 years after the 15th Amendment, opponents of Black political power are again seeking to undo our constitutional rights and freedoms.
Other cases this term will examine environmental accountability and the self-determination and bodily autonomy of LGBTQ individuals. On Tuesday, Oct. 7, the Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar concerning Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. Such bans have been considered a lifesaving provision by advocates and experts alike, given the documented harm caused by alleged conversion therapy. The case concerns the alleged religious freedom of Christian conversion “therapists” to practice at the expense and well-being of others.
Additional cases this term involve environmental accountability, campaign finance limits, and trans girls and women in sports.
It is worth noting that the Court’s increasing use of its emergency docket, commonly referred to as the shadow docket, has had a significant impact on communities nationwide. Last month, the shadow docket order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem gave the Trump administration free rein to profile and target people assumed to be undocumented based on the type of employment they have, how they look, and the language they speak. Apparently, the Court is okay with using race and ethnicity in decision-making when it benefits fascism, but not when it benefits the people.
The often unsigned decisions usually offer little rationale or analysis but have substantial implications—cases involving extremist executive orders, like undermining the constitutionally protected right to birthright citizenship. In this manner, the Trump administration has declared a state of emergency in the absence of actual emergencies and has invoked powers reserved for extreme circumstances.
It’s yet to be seen whether the Supreme Court will be Trump’s personal court or the people’s Court, but the stakes remain high as the fragile American democracy and people’s livelihoods weigh in the balance.
SEE ALSO:
Black Voter Disenfranchisement Is On The Supreme Court Docket
Fighting For Black Political Power As Voting Rights Act Turns 60
ICYMI: Black Voters In WI and LA Deliver Decisive Defeats To Republicans
