America's Talking - Tariffs to transgender athletes: SCOTUS cases to watch in 2026

Episode Date: January 4, 2026

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court will head into 2026 with numerous high profile decisions to issue. Transgender athletes, birthright citizenship, presidential firing power, tariffs and redistricting are several issues that hang in the balance of the high court’s decision making. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Greetings, everyone, and welcome to America's Talking, powered by the Center Square. I'm Dan McAulb, executive editor of the Center Square Newswire Service. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a number of significant cases in 2026, from President Donald's Trump's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs on U.S. trading partners, Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, whether transgender athletes can be blocked from participating in girls and women's sports, to how far states and cities can go to restrict gun rights. Supreme Court's decisions will have far-reaching implications for most Americans. Join me today to discuss this as the center score is Andrew Rice. Andrew, there are a lot of big cases. Scotus will decide in 2026. Where do you want to start? Right. Like you said, Dan, there are lots of big cases.

I think the best place to start is on executive power with President Trump's executive power. That is something that a lot of legal experts and minds in Washington, as well as around the country, are really looking to see how the Supreme Court is going to define the president. executive power. And those are going to really come in two main cases. That's Trump versus Slaughter, which is first the case of whether President Trump can fire members of federal executive boards. It stems from his firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. She was fired several months ago. And this has gone through the court system. And now the Supreme Court is expected to make a significant decision on this case. And it could really, have some far-reaching impacts in that it would undo a court precedent that is almost more

than 90 years old. It initially is a court precedent established when Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired, attempted to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission as well, and it's coming back. And it could really seriously undo some legal precedent set by the court, again, like I said, almost 90 years in the making. And then would the second one be then And the tariffs, of course, from the beginning of Trump's second term in office, he issued sweeping tariffs on international trade partners, took them off, negotiated with them. It's sort of been an off and on again thing all year. Tariffs are currently in place. Several businesses, several blue states sued the Trump administration. And the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether or not Trump has the authority to issue these tariffs. outside of Congress. Yes, exactly. As you said, Dan, Trump's tariff policy has been central to his economic policy in his second term.

And this tariff policy, he's rooted in a 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. He rooted that authority to impose tariffs across the world, on countries across the world, in that power. And a lot of businesses across the country and states have filed a suit against that saying that President Trump does not have that tariff authority because that 1977 act had never mentioned the word tariffs or cited that the president had that terror authority. However, the Trump administration and President Trump himself have repeatedly defended the decision saying that the law grants the president the ability to use emergency. powers and in times of crisis. And he is pointing to the current economic state in the country as a time of crisis. It's up to the court to see how that'll play out. They heard oral arguments back in November and should make a really important decision coming up in this year. How about the birthright citizenship issue, Andrew? For centuries, the practicing law in the

United States has been that if you are born in the United States to non-citizen parents, parents who are not citizens, whether they're in the country illegally or illegally, you've been granted citizenship. Trump is trying to change it. Exactly. Trump is trying to make a significant change in the concept of birthright citizenship. The concept of this idea really stems from the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to freed African-American slaves, and it is going to be something serious that the country will be looking at. As President Trump is looking to undo this, he is really looking to see that the 14th Amendment, and the Trump administration is looking to say that the 14th Amendment never guaranteed the right to birthright citizenship to individuals born in

the country. And they're looking to say that your parent has to, one or more of your parents has to have also had some form of citizenship or protection. Some legal scholars are really saying that the 14th Amendment was rooted in an understanding of common law at the time that citizenship was defined by protection of a sovereign. So a lot of legal scholars are debating what that means and how that's going to play out in the court's understanding. A lot of originalist scholars, which the majority of the Supreme Court now are originalists are going to determine, have said that the determination of the 14th Amendment will be very, very key to some of the deliberations in these upcoming decisions.

Another controversial issue that's before the courts has to do with transgender athletes in schools and college settings. A number of red states have prohibited or at least restricted athletes who are born male from participating in female sports, two cases, one out of West Virginia and one out of Idaho where those restrictions are in place are before the Supreme Court. Tell us a little bit more about that. Absolutely. There are two cases, like you said, these two cases out of Idaho and West Virginia are going to be extremely consequential. And they're following up really on what the Supreme Court decided in its last term when it, decided to allow Tennessee and other states to uphold a ban on gender-affirming surgeries for minors

and hormone procedures. This is taking it a step further in defining what a protected class is in terms of the law. A lot of advocates for transgender policies, particularly in Idaho and West Virginia want to create a protected class. I want the Supreme Court to create a protected class for transgender individuals so that they can participate. And they're trying to go after these Title IX discriminations saying that it is a discrimination against these biological men who are attempting to compete in girls and women's sports because it is discriminating against them on the basis of their gender identity and these preferences in how they choose to express their gender. So it's going to be really interesting to see because states

across, like you said, states across the country, including Idaho and West Virginia, have implemented laws barring biological men from this. But as I said, these advocates are really seeking to get heightened scrutiny from the Supreme Court to really create a protected class of these transgender individuals who they say have been discriminated by not being allowed to compete in girls and women's sports. Thank you for joining us today. Andrew, listeners can keep up with these Supreme Court cases, those involving congressional redistricting, gun rights, and more at thecenter square.com.