MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — After a year in which the Supreme Court frequently ruled in favor of the Trump administration, legal scholars say the White House should not expect the same level of success in 2026, according to UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar on Verdict.
Many citizens and legal scholars were alarmed last year by the volume of Supreme Court cases decided in the administration’s favor, but Amar argues that the record reflects legal strategy more than ideological deference and is unlikely to be repeated.
In 2025, the Supreme Court heard 39 cases appealed by the Trump administration, most of them involving requests for interim relief. The administration prevailed in all but three.
Although this record was widely viewed as a stain on the court’s legitimacy, Verdict reports that Trump’s success can be attributed to fewer political causes. The White House could have selected any of roughly 150 cases to appeal, but it chose lower court rulings that were decided prematurely or based on precedents likely to be reconsidered regardless of who brought the cases.
Verdict concedes that some of the Supreme Court’s rulings were “troubling,” citing the court’s defense last summer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s use of race in identifying enforcement targets. Still, Amar asserts that “underlying constitutional and remedial legal principles favored President Trump,” rather than institutional bias by the court.
In 2026, however, Amar expects a different outcome. The court’s docket, rather than being composed of cases strategically selected by the solicitor general, now includes matters the court has an “institutional responsibility to take up.”
Amar first points to Trump’s contested authority to impose tariffs. According to Verdict, a majority of the court appeared skeptical of the White House’s arguments during oral arguments in November.
Carter Phillips, a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court 91 times, told WTTW that the prolonged delay in issuing a decision, despite an accelerated briefing and argument schedule, could signal division among the justices.
Verdict also expressed confidence that the court will not allow President Trump to fire Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lisa Cook. In that case, the solicitor general conceded that statutory cause is required to remove Cook, prompting the president to cite alleged mortgage fraud.
Verdict expects the court to affirm the lower court’s conclusion that any cause for removal must be based on actions taken while serving as a Federal Reserve governor.
The Guardian has reported that the Supreme Court is likely to rely on the Federal Reserve’s unique institutional structure to reject the administration’s position. When the court allowed Trump to remove officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the majority referenced the Fed despite it not being directly at issue, writing that “the Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
According to The Guardian, many observers viewed that language as a signal that the court would resist efforts to remove officials within the Federal Reserve system.
Despite widespread expectations that the Fed will be protected from presidential firings, both Verdict and The Guardian report continued confidence that the court will allow the firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter.
Ultimately, Amar argues that the Trump administration’s judicial success in 2025 rested on legal footing rather than political favoritism. While that conclusion may undermine claims that the Supreme Court simply deferred to the White House, it also suggests that the administration’s momentum may not carry into 2026.
Amar, for example, expects the president to face defeat when his birthright citizenship executive order reaches trial. Setting politics aside, Amar writes that “there is a statutory as well as a constitutional ground on which the president’s executive order should founder.”
The Supreme Court has not yet issued decisions in these high-profile cases, but rulings are expected in the coming months. If the outcomes align with signals from oral arguments, the Trump administration may be forced to pursue objectives through avenues that rest on grounds other than law.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“Although this record was widely viewed as a stain on the court’s legitimacy”
No, it was viewed as a stain on lower court rulings based on political bias and advocacy instead of the law.
Be curious to see your source on that