Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Chart of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of 2025.
The three biggest US Supreme Court cases to watch
The 2025 Supreme Court term began this month, ushering in a slate of cases that could reshape American governance. No one will be watching more closely than President Donald Trump, whose efforts to expand executive power and limit independent oversight will be under the judicial microscope.
Here are the biggest cases to watch:
Is it time to end the Voting Rights Act? Louisiana v. Callais
Louisiana v. Callais will be argued today. It could upend the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the landmark 1965 law that outlawed discriminatory practices that were designed to limit people's access to the ballot on the basis of race. Before the VRA, African Americans in the South — though granted suffrage by the 15th Amendment in 1870 — were often disenfranchised by literacy tests, poll taxes, and gerrymandered districts designed to dilute their political power.
Today, Section 2 of the VRA is frequently used, most often by Democrats, to challenge electoral maps that diminish the voting strength of minority groups. Louisiana vs Callais arose after courts ordered Louisiana to create one more majority-Black congressional district in order to better reflect the state’s demographics. In practice, this would also create a safer district for Democrats in a state that is controlled by the GOP.
The state is arguing that all “race-based redistricting is unconstitutional,” even when it creates more demographically-balanced maps, and that the VRA “inherently rests on a racial stereotype: that all voters of a particular race must — by virtue of their membership in their racial class — think alike.”
The stakes: If the Court accepts Louisiana’s argument, it would overturn decades of precedent and would likely spur several states to redraw maps ahead of the midterms — which could cost Democrats seats.
“A ruling to strike down Section two would matter quite a lot to redistricting efforts in the South,” says Eurasia Group US expert Noah Daponte-Smith. “It would put a number of Democratic seats currently protected by the VRA at risk, bolstering Republicans’ narrow advantage in the ongoing redistricting war.”
Who controls US trade policy? Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump tests whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval.
In February and April 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs. First, on Canada, Mexico, and China, citing drug trafficking and immigration emergencies. Then, globally with “Liberation Day” tariffs that hit nearly all US trading partners.
Lower courts have unanimously ruled that there was no emergency and that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose unilateral tariffs — a power the Constitution explicitly assigns to Congress under Article I.
The Trump administration cites that IEEPA gives the president the power to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat…to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” and argues the threat of fentanyl and disadvantageous trade deals constitute a national security and economic threat.
The stakes: If the Court sides with Trump, it would effectively cede Congress’s constitutional power over trade to the presidency. If it rules against him, the tariffs could be struck down. A middle-ground decision could let the tariffs stand but narrow IEEPA’s reach. Either way, who will chart America’s role in the global economy hangs in the balance.
“The IEEPA case is one of the most significant in the court’s recent history,” says Daponte-Smith. “The implications for US and global markets, and for US politics, are enormous.”
Can the president fire members of the Federal Reserve? Trump v. Cook
The case with the greatest potential to expand executive power is Trump v. Cook, which centers on whether the president has the authority to remove Federal Reserve officials. The case stems from Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud. The Court has temporarily blocked her dismissal pending oral arguments in January.
Cook denies the mortgage fraud and argues that she is being removed for political reasons – namely that she was appointed by Former President Joe Biden and has a record of siding with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who Trump has disagreed with on interest rate decisions. Trump, in his letter firing Cook, said that the mortgage fraud allegations constitute “gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question [Cook’s] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”
The stakes: “A Fed in which any governor can be fired by the president for cause is not truly independent,” says Daponte-Smith. Cook’s removal would open the door for Trump to install loyalists who could align monetary policy with his political goals. No President in the Fed’s 111-year history has ever successfully removed a sitting Fed governor, largely because the central bank’s independence is seen as a cornerstone of US economic regulation.
More to come?
While Daponte-Smith says rulings in these three cases could “substantially expand executive power, with little oversight, effecting a significant change in the manner in which the United States is governed,” he warns that the high-stake showdown between the Supreme Court and the executive branch may still be ahead.
“I would be watching the various cases percolating up through the court system on the legality of National Guard deployments domestically,” he says. “I’d expect at least one to reach the Supreme Court this term — likely on an emergency basis — and the administration has taken a confrontational tone with the courts on this issue.”
People demonstrations outside the Supreme Court against gender-affirming care for transgender children in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2024. The Court is hearing oral arguments in the United States vs. Skirmetti, which challenges Tennessee’s ban on transgender care for minors. The ruling could affect the 26 states that criminalize gender-affirming care for children.
HARD NUMBERS: SCOTUS affirm transition care ban, OpenAI dons combat boots, and more
6-3: In a 6-3 vote with national implications, the US Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for children, deciding that it doesn’t contravene the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Tennessee is one of 25 states that have banned gender transition care for minors.
$200 million: OpenAI landed a $200-million contract to develop artificial intelligence tools for the US Department of Defense. The Pentagon said the company’s work will help address national security challenges in warfighting. The contract is the first under OpenAI’s new initiative to work with governments.
5,000: North Korea will send 5,000 construction workers to support rebuilding efforts in Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukraine launched a surprise offensive last year. The announcement followed Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu’s visit to Pyongyang on Tuesday. North Korea has previously sent troops to fight on Russia’s behalf in Kursk.
24: The UAE rescued 24 crewmembers after two oil tankers collided in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday. The strait is a vital gateway into the Persian Gulf, with over one fifth of global oil supply flowing through it daily.
Detainees stand behind a fence at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility, where Venezuelans at the center of a Supreme Court ruling on deportation are held, in Anson, Texas, U.S. April 22, 2025.
Hard Numbers: SCOTUS removes protections for Venezuelans, France to build overseas prison, Rice prices soak Japan’s PM, US borrowing costs rise
350,000: The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Trump administration can end temporary deportation protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelans, making them vulnerable to mass deportation.
45 million: After a series of attacks on prison workers, France plans to build a new high-security prison in French Guiana, an overseas department of France which borders Brazil. The $45 million facility, meant to hold drug traffickers and radical Islamists, could open as soon as 2028, and will be located deep in the Amazon jungle.
27.4: With upper house elections approaching, Japan’s current government is facing its lowest approval ratings yet, as support for Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s cabinet has fallen to 27.4%. Shigeru is blamed in part for soaring rice prices, which have doubled over the last year.
5.03: On Monday, US long-term borrowing costs edged up to 5.03%, the highest level since late 2023. The increase reflects the loss of the country’s triple-A credit rating, and concerns that Donald Trump’s major tax and budget bill will plunge the US government into even further debt.
Sen Van Hollen, a vocal Trump critic, on how the Democrats get back in the fight
In a clip from GZERO World’s latest episode, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen lays out what Democrats must do to reclaim political momentum—and it starts with ditching reactive politics. “Voters don’t like people who always seem to have their finger to the wind,” he says. “Probably if I’d done that, I wouldn’t have gone to El Salvador.”
Van Hollen argues that while opposing Trump’s policies is important, Democrats also need to offer a proactive alternative that resonates with working Americans. A central piece of that, he says, is countering Trump’s tax agenda, which he calls “the great betrayal.” “He’s throwing working people under the bus to help the Elon Musks of the world,” Van Hollen warns, pointing to tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of middle- and low-income Americans.
He believes the party’s path forward should include targeted tax relief, expanded access to healthcare, and a stronger focus on economic security—issues that speak directly to voters who once backed Trump but may be open to change.
Watch full episode: Why Sen. Chris Van Hollen stood up to Trump
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
After Sen. Van Hollen's visit to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, what's next?
Ian Bremmer sits down with Senator Chris Van Hollen in the US Capitol Complex in the latest episode of GZERO World to discuss his high-profile trip to El Salvador and what comes next. Van Hollen's visit was intended to draw attention to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongfully deported and held in a Salvadoran prison. But despite the media splash and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling demanding his return, the senator says the Trump administration has done nothing: “The Vice President of El Salvador made it clear repeatedly that the ball was in the Trump administration’s court… They’re only holding him because the Trump administration is paying them to do so.”
So what’s next? Van Hollen is pursuing a three-pronged strategy. First, he’s relying on a federal judge to compel the administration to comply with the court order. Second, he and Senator Tim Kaine are introducing a resolution requiring a public accounting of the administration’s actions and of El Salvador’s human rights practices. And third, he’s turning up the heat on Senate Republicans: “We’re trying to shame our colleagues into standing up for the Constitution. So far, there seems to be no bottom to which they will sink.”
Even after the trip, Van Hollen insists the fight isn’t over—but with Trump’s open defiance of the judiciary, he warns, the rule of law itself may be what’s really on the line.
Watch full episode: Why Sen. Chris Van Hollen stood up to Trump
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
- HARD NUMBERS: Maryland senator flies to El Salvador, Russian journalists jailed, California sues Trump admin over tariffs, EU tilts right on asylum, Peru’s ex-president guilty of money laundering ›
- El Salvador's Bukele refuses to return wrongly-deported Maryland man, and offers to jail US citizens too ›
- The Graphic Truth: How does El Salvador's prison rate stack up? ›
Why Sen. Chris Van Hollen stood up to Trump
In the latest episode of GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks with Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen about his recent trip to El Salvador and his broader concerns over the Trump administration’s abuse of executive power. Van Hollen visited Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man legally residing in the United States (though who initially entered illegally) who was wrongly deported to a prison in El Salvador. Despite a unanimous Supreme Court ruling ordering his return, “the President admitted that he could get him back by simply picking up the phone,” Van Hollen says. “They are in violation of a nine-to-nothing Supreme Court order.”
Van Hollen accuses the Salvadoran government of detaining Abrego Garcia only because “the Trump administration is paying us money to do so.” And while Republicans have remained largely silent, Van Hollen reveals that privately, “they have conceded that we are at risk… when we have a lawless president.”
Then the conversation turns to foreign policy and trade, where Van Hollen criticizes deep State Department cuts and Trump’s sweeping tariffs. “This tariff chaos is hurting our economy,” he says, adding that lawsuits are already challenging what he calls an abuse of emergency powers. On domestic politics, Van Hollen argues that Democrats need to offer a clear economic vision: “Trump’s tax plan… is what I call the great betrayal.”
Finally, the senator reflects on the future of the Democratic Party. He urges fellow Democrats to be more than just “no on Trump,” calling for clear alternatives—especially when it comes to taxes, healthcare, and economic policy. He sees Trump’s tax cuts as “exhibit A of the great betrayal” of working Americans and calls for a plan that benefits those left behind.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
- Trump versus the courts ›
- El Salvador's Bukele refuses to return wrongly-deported Maryland man, and offers to jail US citizens too ›
- HARD NUMBERS: Maryland senator flies to El Salvador, Russian journalists jailed, California sues Trump admin over tariffs, EU tilts right on asylum, Peru’s ex-president guilty of money laundering ›
- What does Trump’s mass deportation mean for Canada — and immigration policy? ›
- Trump’s immigration plan faces hurdles ›
President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Trump White House on cusp of constitutional crisis
The Trump White House appears to be headed for a constitutional crisis, signaling that it intends to push back against judicial rulings that stand in the way of its goals.
Since his election, Trump’s team has pushed back against traditional checks and balances on presidential power, taking direct control of arm’s-length regulatory agencies, using upcoming primary contests to exert influence in Congress, and getting rid of lawyers, auditors, and other senior officials who might insist on following the rule of law.
That leaves the courts as a crucial check on the presidency, but there is now tension around deportation flights that the White House has used to expel migrants it says are members of a Venezuelan criminal organization. Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law, to order them flown to a prison in El Salvador, denounced them as terrorists, and posted a video of their departure online.
Justice James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington ordered flights be stopped while he considers a case contesting the validity of the act. The White House responded by carrying on with several flights, arguing that they were out of US airspace, and jurisdiction, by the time of the ruling. Trump and his allies called for Boasberg to be impeached and Trump denounced Boasberg as a “radical left lunatic.”
John G. Roberts Jr., chief justice of the Supreme Court, responded with an unusual statement rebuking Trump: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Boasberg is demanding more information about the flights. Trump has said he will not defy the court's ruling, but administration lawyers have been notably non-cooperative with Boasberg’s requests.
"The president is clearly looking for excuses to ignore lawful judicial orders, but in doing so they are also challenging certain practices, including the use of nationwide injunctions by district courts that raise questions about the balance of power between the two co-equal branches of government,” says Eurasia Group’s US Director Jon Lieber.
“Ideally, Congress would step in and answer these questions, but that's not going to happen in the current environment, which means there is likely to be an accelerating showdown between a president who is pushing the boundaries of his authority and judges who are trying to restrain him."
President Donald Trump greets Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 04, 2025.
Trump vs. the courts: Republicans call for judge to be impeached
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) filed impeachment articles against US District Court Judge James Boasberg Tuesday afternoon for blocking US President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants and criminal gang members to Venezuela last week.
After his order for a 14-day deportation pause was ignored, Boasberg had demanded that Trump answer a set of questions by noon Tuesday, but that deadline passed without a response. Instead, in a Truth Social post on Tuesday morning, Trump blasted Boasberg, appointed by President Barack Obama, as a “Radical Left Lunatic” and said “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
The post generated rare pushback from Supreme Court Justice – and George W. Bush appointee – John Roberts, who said that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” adding “the normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
How could Boasberg be impeached? The House can impeach federal judges by majority vote, after which two-thirds of the Senate must vote for removal. The resolution has Trump’s support, but considering the Senate’s current split, that outcome is unlikely.
And there’s more. In other legal developments Tuesday, Maryland-based judge Theodore D. Chuang ruled that DOGE and Elon Musk must stop their dismantlement of USAID. The Trump administration also began reinstating 24,000 probationary workers who were fired after US District Judge James Bredar ordered their mass reinstatement last week. And finally, another judge blocked the administration from banning transgender people from serving in the military.