Key Supreme Court Cases 2025-26 for Business Lawyers

Summary

• The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term has already been one of the most consequential in recent memory. This article highlights key developments affecting business lawyers, previewing an in-depth Showcase CLE program at the ABA Business Law Section’s 2026 Spring Meeting.
• In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Berk v. Choy has notable implications for state anti-SLAPP protections.
• Two major cases implicate presidential power over independent agencies, including Trump v. Slaughter, in which the Court is considering the constitutionality of the FTC’s statutory for-cause removal protections. Other significant cases yet to be decided involve products liability and civil procedure.

GCShutter via Getty Images

Jump to:

If you think the Supreme Court has been busy lately, you’re not wrong. October Term 2025 (October 5, 2025, through October 3, 2026) has been one of the most consequential in recent memory, and it’s not over yet. From an emergency docket that has exploded in size and controversy to landmark decisions on presidential removal power, federal preemption, and the scope of emergency economic authority, the Court is reshaping the legal landscape for businesses, regulators, and litigants alike. This program brings together two judges and two leading appellate practitioners to walk through the key developments of the Term, with an eye toward what they mean in practice and what may be coming next.

The panel discussion will open with the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, sometimes called the “interim docket” or more controversially the “shadow docket,” which has become one of the most debated features of modern Supreme Court practice. Twenty-five years ago, the emergency docket was a minuscule part of the Court’s work—typically limited to requests to stay executions of individuals on death row. But over the past fifteen years, the emergency docket has dramatically expanded both in size and importance as it has moved toward contested policy questions involving immigration, federal employees, agency funding, and transgender rights. The panelists will discuss how lower courts have responded to emergency docket rulings, and what it means for litigants and lower courts when major legal questions are resolved in expedited, minimally briefed proceedings with no oral argument.

The program then turns to the Term’s key cases. At the top of the list are two cases squarely implicating presidential power over independent agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court is considering whether the Federal Trade Commission’s statutory for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional after the president fired Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. The stakes could not be higher: the case places Humphrey’s Executor —a 1935 precedent upholding the constitutionality of independent agencies (and, indeed, the FTC specifically)—directly in the crosshairs. A decision overruling or severely limiting that precedent could raise serious questions about the structure of the administrative state, including the Federal Reserve. A companion case, Trump v. Cook, involves the president’s removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, purportedly for cause. While the constitutional independence of the Fed is not directly at issue in Cook, the practical implications for its day-to-day independence are very real.

The panelists will also examine Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a significant products liability case that will address whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims regarding glyphosate when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required such a warning. A ruling in Monsanto’s favor would give businesses a powerful new tool to invoke federal regulatory determinations as a shield against state tort liability, with implications extending well beyond herbicide litigation. And a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor could materially limit the preemptive force of federal statutes, both under express preemption clauses and implied preemption doctrines.

Lest anyone think that civil procedure is just a box to check 1L year, federal court jurisdiction—specifically the procedural mechanics of removal from state to federal court—is receiving substantial attention this Term. In Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, the Court will decide whether district courts can equitably toll the thirty-day deadline for removal, a question with immediate practical stakes for business defendants who generally prefer to litigate in federal court. The already-decided Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist offers an important lesson in the other direction: the Court vacated a trial court victory for a baby-food manufacturer defendant because a retailer defendant had been erroneously dismissed from the case under the fraudulent-joinder doctrine, demonstrating that the Court will enforce jurisdictional limits even when extraordinary inefficiencies result.

Perhaps no decision this Term carries more immediate economic weight than Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, in which the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs are eliminated by that ruling, but the administration is already invoking alternative legal authority to reimpose some of them, and litigation over refunds of tariffs already paid promises to be complex and protracted. Those more interested in Supreme Court nerdery and less interested in the practical significance of the tariffs case will not be left disappointed: the 170 pages of opinions in Learning Resources promise a riveting exploration of the contours of the major questions doctrine. The panel will discuss the varying views on the topic and how they may shake out in future cases.

The panel will also discuss Berk v. Choy, which held that a Delaware state-law pleading requirement—that medical malpractice plaintiffs submit a merit affidavit from a medical professional—conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and does not apply in federal court. The decision reaffirms the supremacy of federal procedural rules in diversity cases, but its broader implication may be its impact on state anti-SLAPP statutes, which often impose procedural requirements that could similarly conflict with federal rules. Businesses that rely on anti-SLAPP protections in federal litigation will want to watch this space carefully.

The program concludes with a look at what may be coming to the Court in the near future.

Whether your primary concern is regulatory risk, litigation strategy, or simply understanding the direction of the law, this program offers a comprehensive, practitioner-focused guide to the Supreme Court’s most important work this Term.

This article previews a Showcase CLE program at the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s upcoming Spring Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. Register now to attend the program, “Annual Review of Business Law Developments in the U.S. Supreme Court,” on Thursday, April 16, 2026, 12:00–1:30 p.m. ET.

Endnotes

Authors

View Bio →

View Bio →

View Bio →

View Bio →

Authors

Superior Court of Delaware

David Cunningham

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Goodwin

Committees

This content was produced by:

• Business and Corporate Litigation Committee
• Judges Initiative Committee

Related Content