Since the Trump administration launched its immigration policies in 2025, challenges to those policies at the Supreme Court have been ongoing. The upcoming term is no different, with justices set to weigh in on several high-profile cases involving immigration, elections and religious freedom.
Immigration takes center stage, as the Supreme Court reviews the administration’s policy of deporting noncitizens to third-party countries where they have no connection, as well as so-called mandatory detentions, the practice of detaining undocumented immigrants already inside the United States without a bond hearing.
Opponents say the policy has overwhelmed courts, overcrowded detention centers and separated families. The Trump administration argues the practice is legal under a 1996 immigration law.
Regent University law professor Brad Jacob believes the Supreme Court could rule either way.
“Political liberals, progressives, are railing a lot these days about how the Supreme Court is in President Trump’s pocket and always gives him what he wants,” Jacob said. “The truth is that the president has lost many, many of the big cases that he cares most about.”
President Donald Trump recently voiced his disappointment on Truth Social, saying the Supreme Court has “let our country down” while calling his appointees a “shell of their original selves.”
Jacob says the court will intervene when the administration acts outside constitutional limits.
“He’s doing some things that are just unconstitutional, and the court will step in and stop him,” Jacob said. “And I think, ultimately, that’s going to happen on a lot of these immigration cases.”
The Supreme Court, made up of three Democratic-appointed and six Republican-appointed justices, has also rebuffed some Republican-backed election efforts.
Jacob sees a pattern in the court’s election decisions.
“Wherever Congress hasn’t acted, that’s going to fall back to state law, and whatever the state says is the law is going to be the law,” he said.
This term, justices will decide whether Arizona can require documented proof of citizenship for voter registration and whether the state can cancel ineligible registrations within days of a federal election, in Republican National Committee v. La Familia Vota.
Religious freedom arguments will also be under the microscope.
The cases include disputes over government funding for religious schools that reject LGBTQ-friendly policies in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, as well as a religious zoning law dispute in Grand v. City of University Heights.
Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew in Ohio, received a cease-and-desist order after attempting to host Shabbat prayers in his home.
Jacob questioned the city’s decision to intervene.
“You even wonder why his neighbors and the city are so mean-spirited, that they would try to stop 10 Jewish men from quietly praying in a guy’s living room,” Jacob said. “I think this one’s going to be a slam dunk.”
The case is among several to watch as the Supreme Court considers questions involving the future of the freedom and the Constitution.
