OUR CONSTITUTION IS ON THE LINE…BUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND CAN HOLD IT.

 The final opinions of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) were announced last Monday and Tuesday, marking the conclusion of its 2025–2026 term with decisions in a dozen landmark cases.  If you followed The Donkey’s Kick Judging the System series during the judicial retention election, you already know why these rulings matter courts don’t just interpret the law; they define the limitations of our rights

Last year, we spent months reminding our readers how important it was to retain our Democratic Justices on the Supreme Court of PA (SCOPA).  The reason was simple: SCOPA is our firewall.  We successfully retained our Justices because we put boots on the ground and fought hard for it.  This SCOTUS term made it painfully clear why retaining our Justices on SCOPA was crucial for all Pennsylvaians: it delivered a mixture of good and not-so-good opinions that will have major implications for generations to come.  Below are a few key rulings:‍ ‍

SCOTUS RULINGS: GOOD - NOT SO GOOD.  

Campaign Finance: NRSC v. FEC
The conservative majority blew the top off federal limits on party candidate contributions by unleashing a new era of unlimited spending routed through national committees. Oh great!  Because $500,000 wasn’t enough!  This is clearly a win for the rich, like Jeffrey Yass and Elon Musk, and a loss for anti corruption and the rest of us.  And be prepared, because it’s a huge warning for 2026.  Not so good.
‍ ‍
Voting Rights: Watson v. RNC
In a serious hit to Trump’s war on mail-in voting, the Court rejected a GOP attempt to throw out mail-in ballots. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Barrett (you read that right), joined by Roberts and all three liberals, SCOTUS upheld Mississippi’s rule allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted for five days. The decision protects similar laws in 30 states.  Good.
‍ ‍
Executive Power: Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter:
Here, the Court tried to strike a balance with two different cases. In Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 majority blocked Trump from immediately firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, ruling she’s entitled to due process before removal. Good. But in Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative majority went all in by striking down the 91-year-old precedent that protected independent agencies from political purges. This ruling hands presidents sweeping new power to fire pretty much anyone at will. Not so good.
‍ ‍
Digital Privacy: Chatrie v. United States
In a rare privacy win, the Court ruled 5-4 that geofence warrants, which are searches of everyone’s cell phone location data, violate the Fourth Amendment unless supported by probable cause. The courts have usually given law enforcement broad latitude, especially with modern technology, so this ruling is a hopeful reminder that even this Court occasionally remembers the Constitution protects people, not just the powerful.  Good.
‍ ‍
Transgender Rights: West Virginia v. B.P.J. & Little v. Hecox
In a hard loss to our LGBTQ+ community, friends, and allies, the Court upheld state bans on transgender girls in school sports.  The opinions call it “fairness” while pretending discrimination is just good policy. (Remember Plessy vs Ferguson?) Twenty seven states already have these bans and now they have the backing of SCOTUS. Not so good.

‍ ‍BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP:

Barbara v. Trump

In the term’s most anticipated ruling: SCOTUS struck down Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reaffirmed the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, no matter their parents’ status. Not as good as you might think.

Trump v. Barbara came down as a 6-3 decision on paper, but the real question of whether “birth right citizenship” is constitutional law was in essence only supported by five votes. The Court did strike down Trump’s executive order to attempt to end birthright citizenship. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh refused to join the other justices in accepting that Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case establishing birthright citizenship, is settled constitutional law. By refusing to endorse birthright citizenship as settled law, he signaled openness to future challenges and effectively invited Congress to pass legislation claiming it isn’t a constitutional right. It’s the same strategy that set the stage for overturning Roe v. Wade in the 2022 2022 Dobbs decision.  Really not good. The constitution is hanging on by one vote. Seriously terrifying.