Supreme Court opens October 2025 term with executive power docket
3d7fd0e4-93ee-4c81-bb48-817997eb6207
57e3d4eb-46b6-4ec5-92d4-36955ca0cc65
aabafd56-19ee-4c5d-9ec8-b3a536f29237

Supreme Court opens October 2025 term with executive power docket

Supreme Court sided with Trump in 84% of shadow docket cases

The Supreme Court began the October 2025 term on October 6, 2025, with a docket that includes several high‑stakes fights over presidential authority, tariffs, agency removals, voting‑rights maps, campaign finance rules, transgender sports rules, and conversion‑therapy bans. The court accepted consolidated challenges to President Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, agreed to hear the dispute over FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter (the Court stayed a lower‑court reinstatement on Sept. 8 and accepted the case on Sept. 22, 2025), and placed the Federal Reserve removal dispute involving Governor Lisa Cook on a January 2026 argument schedule. Different trackers count emergency applications differently; the Center for American Progress reports the Court sided with the administration in 84 percent of shadow‑docket matters in its review, while other trackers use different cutoffs and report slightly different rates. The term's calendar also includes Louisiana v. Callais (argued Oct. 15, 2025) and Colorado's Chiles v. Salazar (Oct. 7, 2025).

The Supreme Court began the __ DATE_PLACEHOLDER_4__25 term on October 6, 2025, with a docket that includes several high‑stakes fights over presidential authority, tariffs, agency removals, voting‑rights maps, campaign finance rules, transgender sports rules, and conversion‑therapy bans. The court accepted consolidated challenges to President Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, agreed to hear the dispute over FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter (the Court stayed a lower‑court reinstatement on Sept. 8 and accepted the case on Sept. 22, 2025), and placed the Federal Reserve removal dispute involving Governor Lisa Cook on a January 2026 argument schedule. Different trackers count emergency applications differently; the Center for American Progress reports the Court sided with the administration in 84 percent of shadow‑docket matters in its review, while other trackers use different cutoffs and report slightly different rates. The term's calendar also includes Louisiana v. Callais (argued Oct. 15, 2025) and Colorado's Chiles v. Salazar (Oct. 7, 2025).

Why this matters

The October 2025 term will determine the scope of presidential power to fire independent agency heads, impose tariffs, and control the federal bureaucracy. The Supreme Court's 84 percent win rate for Trump on the shadow docket shows the court's willingness to enable executive actions through emergency orders. Cases could overturn 90-year precedents protecting agency independence (Humphrey's Executor v. United States from 1935) and voting rights protections. The NRSC v. FEC campaign finance ruling could unleash unlimited coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. Transgender sports and conversion therapy cases will test whether the 14th Amendment protects gender identity. The term represents a potential inflection point toward a dramatically more powerful presidency with fewer institutional checks. Ten federal judges interviewed by NBC News criticized the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary.

Core Facts

The Supreme Court opened its 2025–26 term on October 6, 2025, and scheduled dozens of cases through June 2026.

The Court accepted consolidated tariff challenges (Learning Resources v. Trump; Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) that raise whether IEEPA authorizes the Liberation Day tariffs and whether that statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative power.

The Court stayed a lower‑court order reinstating FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter on Sept. 8, 2025, and accepted the Slaughter removal dispute for further review on Sept. 22, 2025. The case raises whether Humphrey's Executor (1935) still protects multi‑member independent agencies.

The Court put the challenge over President Trump's effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on a January 2026 argument schedule; reporting and calendars show the Court has not issued a published emergency order on Oct. 1, 2025 that immediately resolved Cook's removal.

Trackers disagree on counts. Reuters reported 19 emergency applications by mid‑June 2025; the Brennan Center and others counted 22 shadow‑docket decisions affecting administration actions; the Center for American Progress reports the Court sided with the administration in 84 percent of cases by its methodology.

Louisiana v. Callais was set for argument on Oct. 15, 2025, and challenges a second majority‑minority district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

NRSC v. FEC challenges coordination limits between parties and campaigns. The case is closely watched for how it would change campaign spending rules; the original description misstates JD Vance's filing role and timing.

Chiles v. Salazar (conversion‑therapy ban) and other First Amendment and equal‑protection claims are on the October 2025 docket and will test state power to regulate speech and medical practice.

Key Actors

John Roberts

Chief Justice

Presides over the Court that opened Oct. 6, 2025, and assigns opinions in the majority. The Roberts court is adjudicating major questions about presidential authority, the shadow docket, and voting rights this term.

Donald Trump

President

His administration has used emergency applications extensively in 2025 to seek expedited Supreme Court intervention. Different trackers count those applications and outcomes differently, but CAP reports an 84% favorable rate for the administration under its methodology.

Elena Kagan

Associate Justice

Has written forceful dissents criticizing the Court's increasing use of emergency orders and warned against using the shadow docket to transfer congressional authority to the President.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Associate Justice

Joins other liberal justices in dissenting from shadow‑docket orders that the liberals say expand executive power without full briefing and argument.

JD Vance

Vice President, former Senator

As a former U.S. senator, he previously litigated and supported cases challenging campaign finance limits. The original text misstated the timing of his service; he was elected in Nov. 2022 and sworn in Jan. 2023, and his later roles intersect with NRSC litigation and political filings.

Actionable Insights

Track emergency orders and full merits dockets

Follow same‑day audio and the Court's official calendar to see whether orders are stay votes or full grants, and how the Court schedules merits briefing and argument.

Read multiple trackers for shadow‑docket counts

Compare methodology across Center for American Progress, Brennan Center, SCOTUSblog and Reuters when citing 'win rates' or counts for emergency applications.

Contact your senators on Court transparency

Request hearings or oversight on emergency‑docket transparency and the Court's publication of vote counts and rationale for emergency orders.

Test Your Knowledge

Ready to put your civic knowledge to the test? Take a quiz on this topic to see how well you understand the key concepts.

Start Quiz

19 questions available