Brace yourself for a surge of action from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is accelerating its schedule, preparing to issue some of the most significant rulings of the term before recessing for the summer.

The next wave of opinions is expected on June 5, though the court’s most pivotal decisions may be released later.

Key pending cases include whether the court will permit President Donald Trump to implement his altered birthright citizenship policy while litigation proceeds, and whether Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors will be upheld.

Alongside resolving cases argued in recent months, the justices are also handling an unusual volume of emergency petitions from the Trump administration seeking intervention in ongoing legal battles over the president’s policies.

This influx of urgent cases could extend the court’s regular docket into July.

Here’s an overview of the major decisions anticipated soon:

Limiting challenges to Trump’s executive orders
Judges nationwide have stalled Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, ruling it likely violates the Constitution.

At oral arguments on May 15, no justices supported the administration’s claim that the order aligns with the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause or precedent.

However, several justices questioned whether a single judge should be able to block a law or executive order nationwide while it’s under dispute.

How the court will handle these “universal” injunctions remains unclear, with potential wide-ranging effects on birthright citizenship and other contested Trump policies.

Religious freedom versus church-state separation
Among three First Amendment cases on religious exercise, the most notable was the Catholic Church’s attempt to operate the nation’s first religious charter school. The court deadlocked 4-4, leaving the lower court’s rejection intact but setting no binding precedent.

In related cases, the court is expected to side with Catholic Charities on whether religious organizations must pay unemployment taxes. The conservative majority also appeared sympathetic to Maryland parents objecting on religious grounds to elementary school books featuring LGBTQ+ themes.

The fight over transgender rights
Transgender rights cases are advancing to the Supreme Court, fueled in part by Trump administration policies targeting transgender individuals.

The court has already granted an emergency request allowing enforcement of the administration’s ban on transgender military service while it faces legal challenges.

The court’s decisions in these areas will shape critical issues surrounding executive authority, religious liberty, and LGBTQ+ rights.

One of the Supreme Court’s most significant pending rulings will determine whether states can prohibit minors from accessing puberty blockers and hormone treatments. During December’s oral arguments, a majority of justices appeared to support states’ authority to impose such bans.

However, the reasoning behind their decision could influence a broader range of transgender rights issues, including the participation of transgender athletes, insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, housing for transgender inmates, and military service eligibility.

Meanwhile, the court seems inclined to rule against parents challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, but may side with Maryland parents seeking to excuse their elementary-aged children from classes featuring books with LGBTQ+ characters.

In a related case about Texas’ requirement that websites verify users are 18 or older, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, expressed personal frustration over controlling children’s internet content. While sympathetic to the law’s intent, the court may find that a lower court did not adequately assess whether the law infringes on adults’ First Amendment rights, potentially requiring further review.

On gun-related cases, the court recently upheld the Biden administration’s regulation of untraceable “ghost guns” by a 7-2 vote, allowing background checks and other controls on these weapons.

However, the court is expected to reject Mexico’s lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers accountable for cartel-related violence, with a majority likely agreeing that the causal chain is too indirect to assign liability to the industry.

Neither of these cases directly addresses the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Additionally, the court narrowly declined to hear challenges to Maryland’s assault-style weapons ban and Rhode Island’s high-capacity magazine restriction.

Planned Parenthood—but not abortion itself—is at the center of a key case
Unlike last year’s cases directly focused on abortion access, the Supreme Court is not currently addressing abortion itself. Instead, the justices are weighing South Carolina’s effort to cut Planned Parenthood from public funding for other health services because the organization also provides abortions.

The core question is whether Medicaid patients have the right to sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program.

If the court rules that patients cannot sue, other Republican-led states are expected to follow suit and remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs. Anti-abortion advocates are pushing for this approach nationwide.

Conservative challenges to Obamacare and internet subsidies
The court is reviewing conservative challenges targeting both Obamacare and an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans.

The justices appear likely to reject the claim that the telecommunications subsidy program constitutes an unconstitutional tax—a case that raises broader questions about how much legislative authority Congress can delegate to federal agencies.

A fresh challenge to the Affordable Care Act focuses on the law’s requirement that insurers cover preventive care—like cancer screenings and diabetes tests—without extra charges.

Two Christian-owned businesses and some individuals in Texas argue that the volunteer expert panel deciding which preventive services insurers must cover wields so much power that its members should be presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate, according to constitutional norms.

Multiple discrimination cases before the court
The Supreme Court is also weighing several cases involving alleged discrimination in workplaces, schools, and the drawing of congressional districts.

The justices seemed poised to rule that a straight woman faces a higher burden to sue for workplace discrimination than a gay employee would—potentially making it easier to bring “reverse discrimination” claims.

The court may side with a Minnesota teenager seeking to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for failing to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, which makes attending class before noon difficult.