WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to decide the last four cases of its 2025-26 term Tuesday, with major implications for the future of immigration, women’s sports, and the midterm elections.

Here are the cases that are still pending.

Birthright citizenship

By far the most closely watched case is the challenge to President Trump’s day-one executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and foreign tourists.

Trump, who watched oral arguments in the case back in April, has publicly predicted the high court will rule against him, in what would be the second blow to a marquee policy of his this year after the justices quashed much of his reciprocal tariff regime in February.

The president has contended that current US policy incentivizes foreigners to come to America illegally so that their children can become citizens.

Opponents say the order violates the plain text of the 14th Amendment, which states: “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 challenge to Trump’s order before the court was brought by three foreign nationals: Barbara, a Honduran asylum applicant who gave birth in October of last year; Susan, a Taiwanese citizen in the US on a student visa whose daughter was born in April 2025 and whose American passport application was in progress at the time of the suit; and Mark, a Brazilian applicant for permanent residency whose son was born in March 2025 and initially received a US passport.

All three say that the order unlawfully stripped their children of American citizenship and its attendant benefits, including Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps.

Transgender athletes in women’s sports

The culture wars have returned to the Supreme Court this term, with the justices having to decide whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia aimed at preserving girl’s sports for biological females are constitutional.

About half of the states in the US have similar laws on the books and during oral arguments, the Supreme Court seemed inclined to defer to the states.

“Given that half the states are allowing it — allowing transgender girls and women to participate — and about half are not, why would we, at this point … jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country?” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked an attorney challenging Idaho’s ban.

The Idaho law restricts trans women from joining female sports teams in all state institutions from elementary school through college. Under the West Virginia law, biological males — including trans women — can only play on boy’s or co-ed teams.

Both states’ laws have been enjoined by lower courts while the Supreme Court hears the case. The justices heard both arguments in the same session, but may issue separate opinions to cover each state’s law.

Campaign finance

This case will determine whether federal limits on coordinated spending between official party campaign arms, such as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and individual candidates are unconstitutional.

If the high court strikes down those limits, it could be a huge boost to Republicans, who boast a massive cash advantage at this point in the 2026 cycle.

The Republican National Committee, for example, has more than $125 million cash on hand compared to the Democratic National Committee’s $14.8 million, according to the latest FEC filings.

Once the Supreme Court hands down all of its remaining opinions, it will go into recess until Oct. 5

Despite not holding oral arguments, the justices will still weigh in on motions and select additional cases to hear in 2026-27.