The U.S. Supreme Court will convene Friday morning for a public non-argument session and may announce at least one opinion from the bench, setting the stage for what could be one of the most consequential stretches of decisions in recent memory. The justices will take the bench at 10 a.m., Newsweek reported, citing a court update released Tuesday.

The session comes as the court sits on a growing stack of high-profile cases, birthright citizenship, presidential firing authority over independent agency commissioners, and whether transgender athletes can compete in women's and girls' sports. Each one carries enormous stakes for the constitutional order, and the clock is ticking. The court typically wraps up its term in late June or early July.

Any opinions released Friday will be posted on the court's website shortly after they are announced. Seating will be available to the public, members of the Supreme Court bar, and the press, though the building will otherwise be closed during the session. After the session ends, the building will reopen and remain open until 3 p.m.

Later Friday, the justices will meet behind closed doors in a private conference to discuss pending cases and vote on whether to accept new petitions for review. The court said it will release its next order list at 9:30 a.m. Monday, April 20.

Birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Among the most closely watched cases on the docket is the challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump signed the order on the first day of his second term, establishing that children born in the United States to temporary visitors and illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens by birth.

The court heard oral arguments on the case earlier this month, and the exchanges from the bench offered a window into how the justices are thinking. Chief Justice John Roberts said it is not clear how exceptions to citizenship under existing law can be applied to "a whole class of illegal aliens." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three justices Trump nominated during his first term, along with Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, noted that Congress might have worded things differently in laws enacted in 1940 and 1952 if lawmakers wanted to make clear that children of people in the country illegally or temporarily were not entitled to citizenship.

Trump's historic appearance at oral arguments earlier this month, the first time a sitting president attended a Supreme Court argument session, drew intense political reaction in Washington and underscored how personally invested the administration is in the outcome.

The birthright citizenship order strikes at one of the most consequential policy questions facing the country: whether the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to "all persons born" on U.S. soil applies without exception, or whether Congress and the executive branch have room to define its limits. For Americans who have watched decades of failed border enforcement and mass illegal immigration, the case is not abstract. It touches the basic question of who gets to be a citizen and on what terms.

Presidential power over independent agencies

Another major case pending before the court tests whether the president can fire members of independent federal agencies at will. The dispute centers on Trump's removal of Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter was first appointed to the FTC by Trump in 2018 and later reappointed by then-President Joe Biden to a term expiring in 2029.

Slaughter's attorneys argued that her removal constituted "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance", the traditional legal standard that has historically limited a president's power to fire commissioners of independent agencies. Lawyers for the federal government pushed back hard, arguing that "the President must be able to remove, at will, members of multimember commissions that exercise substantial executive power."

The outcome could reshape the relationship between the executive branch and the sprawling network of independent agencies that exercise vast regulatory authority over American businesses and citizens. If the court sides with the administration, it would mark a major shift in the balance of power, and a long-overdue correction, in the view of many conservatives who have watched unaccountable bureaucrats wield enormous influence with little democratic oversight.

The case also fits a broader pattern. Lower federal courts have repeatedly clashed with the administration over executive authority, and the Supreme Court has stepped in more than once to resolve those disputes. As recent confrontations between the justices and Biden-appointed judges have shown, the court is increasingly the final arbiter of how far presidential power extends, and how far lower courts can go in blocking it.

Transgender athletes and the definition of sex

In January, the court heard oral arguments on two cases related to whether transgender athletes can participate in women's and girls' sports. The cases arrive against the backdrop of Trump's January 20, 2025, executive order establishing that gender identity "cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex," which the order defines as "not changeable" and "grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."

For millions of parents and female athletes, the question is straightforward: should biological males be allowed to compete against girls and women? The executive order reflects a common-sense position shared by most Americans, but the legal fight is far from settled. How the court rules could determine whether federal policy protects women's sports or bows to ideological pressure from activists who insist that biological sex is a matter of personal declaration.

The court's handling of these cases will be closely watched alongside its other recent rulings on free speech and constitutional rights. In one recent decision, the justices backed a Christian counselor's free speech challenge to a Colorado conversion therapy ban, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting alone, a sign of how sharply the court's ideological lines are drawn on culture-war questions.

A court under pressure, and under the spotlight

The current Supreme Court holds a 6-3 conservative majority. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett join Chief Justice Roberts on the right side of the bench, while Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson make up the liberal wing. Three of the six conservatives, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, were nominated by Trump during his first term.

That composition has made the court a focal point of Democratic anxiety. Former Vice President Kamala Harris publicly warned that Trump must be stopped from selecting additional justices, saying Democrats "must be clear-eyed about what is at stake," Breitbart reported. Harris framed the prospect of further Trump appointments as a major political threat, a telling admission of how much progressive power depends on the judiciary rather than the legislature.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also voiced frustration with the court's workload and pace, decrying what she called the "unprecedented" emergency docket as the court reshapes how it handles fast-moving, high-stakes cases. The criticism from the liberal wing only highlights how much ground the left has lost at the high court, and how determined they are to delegitimize the institution rather than accept the results.

The tariff ruling looms large

The court has already delivered one blockbuster this term. In a 6-3 decision, the justices struck down Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling that the 1977 emergency statute does not authorize a president to levy tariffs of "unlimited amount, duration, and scope." The court held that Article I gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose duties and tariffs, making it a significant separation-of-powers ruling, Newsmax reported.

Trump responded by noting the decision was limited in scope. He told reporters that "there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as President of the United States," Just The News reported.

And the economic picture bears that out. Tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 were not affected by the ruling and remain in force. Industries still facing steep tariffs include autos and auto parts at 25 percent, steel and aluminum at 50 percent, furniture products at 25 percent, and certain semiconductors and chipmaking equipment at 25 percent, the New York Post reported.

The tariff decision illustrates the tension at the heart of this Supreme Court term: a conservative majority willing to enforce constitutional boundaries on executive power, even when the president is a Republican. That is not a betrayal of conservatism. It is conservatism working as designed, insisting that the separation of powers means something, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

What comes next

Friday's session may or may not produce a landmark ruling. The court controls its own calendar, and the justices are under no obligation to tip their hand early. But the cases waiting in the pipeline, birthright citizenship, independent agency firings, transgender athletes in women's sports, will define the legal landscape for years.

The private conference later Friday will add another layer. When the justices meet behind closed doors to vote on new petitions, they will decide which fights to take on next, and which to leave to the lower courts. The order list due Monday, April 20, will reveal those choices.

For conservatives, the stakes are plain. A court that enforces the Constitution as written, that holds the line on citizenship, executive accountability, and biological reality, is not a court to fear. It is the institution working the way the Founders intended. The question is whether the justices will follow through.