Stanford Law Scholars Weigh In On the Supreme Court’s Consequential Term
Throughout the Supreme Court’s 2025–26 term, Stanford Law School faculty helped make sense of the Court’s decisions and their broader implications. In Stanford Legal podcasts, Legal Aggregate Q&As, essays, and commentary for outside publications, Stanford Law faculty brought context and expertise to the term’s most closely watched cases.
Faculty commentary spanned presidential power, immigration, voting rights, gun regulation, digital privacy, federal preemption, and other areas in which the Court’s rulings will shape the law for years to come.
This roundup gathers Stanford Law commentary on some of the cases and controversies that defined the Court’s latest term.
Overview of the Term
On a recent Stanford Legal podcast and in an accompanying Q&A, Professor Jeffrey Fisher joined Professor Pamela Karlan to assess the Court’s latest term, including its clashes with the Trump administration and major rulings on executive power, citizenship, voting rights, transgender athletes, and digital privacy.
Second Amendment
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s default ban on firearms in businesses open to the public. Professor John Donohue explains the ruling and its implications for gun and property rights in a Legal Aggregate Q&A.
Immigration Decisions
Writing in Legal Aggregate and for the University of Oxford, Professor Jennifer Chacón examines several immigration decisions, arguing that the justices misread federal law to expand executive enforcement power while weakening statutory protections for immigrants.
Birthright Citizenship
Professor Fred Smith examines the Court’s birthright citizenship decision, its treatment of nationwide injunctions, and what the ruling leaves unresolved. Listen to the podcast or read the Q&A.
Fourth Amendment
In a brief note, Professor Orin Kerr highlights the Court’s unexpectedly broad pro-privacy ruling in Chatrie and its extension of Fourth Amendment protections for smartphone data.
Federal Preemption
In a Legal Aggregate note, Professor Robert Rabin explains the Court’s ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, which blocked a state failure-to-warn claim and could affect thousands of similar Roundup lawsuits.
Voting Rights
Professor Pamela Karlan argues in a Just Security essay that Louisiana v. Callais sharply weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and could accelerate the dismantling of majority-Black and Latino districts. Karlan also joins a New York Review conversation on the Court’s “death blow” to the Voting Rights Act. And in a Stanford Legal podcast, Karlan and Professor Nathaniel Persily examine the ruling’s implications for racial representation, partisan gerrymandering, and anti-discrimination law.
The Shadow Docket
Professor Michael McConnell writes in a Washington Post op-ed that the Supreme Court’s increased use of its emergency docket, or so-called “shadow docket,” reflects the rise of aggressive executive action, not a covert effort to favor one president.
Trump’s Tariffs
Stanford Law faculty examined the Court’s tariff ruling from several angles. Before the decision, Professor Michael McConnell—who served as co-counsel for the challengers—discussed the separation-of-powers stakes in a Stanford Legal podcast and Q&A. Afterward, McConnell assessed the ruling in a National Review op-ed, while Professor Alan Sykes joined the podcast to explain the decision’s trade-law implications and what may come next.
Nationwide Injunctions
In a Stanford Legal podcast and accompanying Q&A, Professor Mila Sohoni examines the Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, which curtailed nationwide injunctions while leaving other avenues for broad relief—and new questions for lower courts.
‘Dismantling the Second Reconstruction’
On Slate’s Amicus podcast, Professor Pamela Karlan discusses how recent Supreme Court decisions and Trump administration actions are accelerating what she sees as the dismantling of the civil rights framework built during the Second Reconstruction.