Case: Trump v. Barbara, No. 25–365
Decided: June 30, 2026
Author: Roberts
Vote: 6-3 — 5 Justices on Fourteenth Amendment grounds + Kavanaugh concurring on statutory grounds

Read the original source document:

https://documents.lastweekinlaw.com/view/25-365_4hdj.pdf

Case: Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24–1260
Decided: June 29, 2026
Author: Barrett
Vote: 5-4

Read the original source document:

https://documents.lastweekinlaw.com/view/24-1260_g3cn.pdf

The r/law mod team is hosting original source documents with limited annotations for additional context.

To keep discussion in one place, we remove duplicate posts and link major media coverage in the pinned comment.

Analysis and discussion in the comments.

"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy," Kavanaugh wrote. "But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful."

A unanimous SC opinion that has been repeatedly reaffirmed is just tossed out.

What exactly is the point of the SC anymore?

Like this is very cryptic and it’s definitely not written by Trump so someone might be planning something very very bad

• For months, President Donald Trump has been coping with his myriad failures and plummeting approval ratings by trying to make it harder for people to vote his party out of power in the 2026 midterms.
• To that end, in March, he issued an executive order that would require the U.S. Postal Service to draft a rule that would upend vote-by-mail procedures in dozens of states, and effectively block the agency from processing ballots that do not comply with the rule’s exacting requirements. Trump did not attempt to hide his motives for doing so: Legal restrictions on mail-in voting, he told Republican lawmakers, would “guarantee the midterms” for a party that is otherwise in danger of losing them badly.
• A series of lawsuits ensued, given that the Constitution (1) divides the power to administer federal elections between Congress and the states and (2) very much does not allow elderly conspiracy theorists to arrogate that power on account of their fixation with the results of a presidential election they lost more than a half-decade ago.
• And fortunately for anyone who cares about maintaining some semblance of representative democracy in this country, in a three-sentence order on Monday, the Supreme Court left in place a federal district court order that blocks the Postal Service’s rule from taking effect in time for the 2026 midterms. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted their dissents.

Two things were obvious at Wednesday morning’s Supreme Court argument in Louisiana v. Callais, a case asking the Court to abolish longstanding safeguards against racially gerrymandered legislative maps.

The first thing is that the Court will split along party lines, with all six Republicans voting to destroy the federal Voting Rights Act’s (VRA) restrictions on racial gerrymandering, and all three Democrats in dissent. The other thing is that there is no consensus among the Republicans about how they should write an opinion gutting these protections.

While all six Republican justices almost certainly walked into Wednesday’s argument with a particular result in mind, they had wildly divergent theories of how to get there.

Case: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, No. 24–621
Decided: June 30, 2026
Author: Kavanaugh
Vote: 6-3

Read the original source document:

https://documents.lastweekinlaw.com/view/24-621_h315.pdf