Supreme Court will hear cases in January on transgender athletes, gun rights, and Trump’s firing of Fed governor

The Supreme Court will kick off 2026 with a series of arguments in blockbuster cases. In a calendar released on Wednesday afternoon, the justices announced that they will hear arguments in January in cases involving transgender athletes, the latest chapter in the court’s gun rights jurisprudence, and President Donald Trump’s bid to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. 

The court in January will hear seven arguments in total, over five days beginning on Jan. 12 and running through Jan. 21. 

In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B. P. J., scheduled for oral arguments on Jan. 13, the court will weigh in on challenges to the constitutionality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. In a case brought by a transgender athlete who wanted to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho’s ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. In a different case, filed by a transgender student seeking to compete on the girls’ sports teams at her middle school, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that West Virginia’s law violates Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, because it discriminates based on sex. 

Lindsay Hecox, the athlete who filed the Idaho case, asked the Supreme Court in September to dismiss the case as moot – that is, no longer a live controversy – after she moved to voluntarily dismiss the case in the lower court. But the justices in October put off deciding that request until oral argument. 

In Wolford v. Lopez, on Jan. 20, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that makes it a crime to carry a handgun on private property without the property owner’s explicit permission – even if you have a license to carry the gun. Three Maui residents who have concealed-carry permits, as well as a gun-rights group, challenged the law in federal court. But the 9th Circuit upheld the law, and the full court – in a divided vote – declined to reconsider that ruling. 

The gun owners then came to the Supreme Court earlier this year, asking the justices to take up the case. “In holding the Second Amendment does not apply to private property,” they contended, “the Ninth Circuit’s decision renders illusory the right to carry in public.” 

And in Trump v. Cook, on Jan. 21, the court will consider Trump’s request to pause a ruling by a federal court in Washington, D.C., that bars him from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Then-President Joe Biden appointed Cook in 2023 to serve a 14-year term, but Trump attempted to fire her earlier this year, accusing her of committing mortgage fraud in 2021. (Cook has denied the allegations, calling them both “flimsy” and “unproven.”) 

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued an order that required the Fed to allow Cook to remain in office while her challenge to Trump’s effort to fire her continues, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to put that ruling on hold while the litigation moves forward. Trump then came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene, but they too refused to put Cobb’s order on hold, instead scheduling argument on the president’s request. 

The January argument schedule

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish (Jan. 12) – Whether a federal law allowing a lawsuit in state court to be removed to federal court when the defendant is “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office” applies to a lawsuit brought by six coastal parishes in Louisiana against oil producers, arising out of the producers’ World War II-era contracts to supply the federal government with aviation fuel derived from crude oil extracted along the coast. 

Little v. Hecox (Jan. 13) – A challenge to an Idaho law that bans transgender women and girls from competing on all women’s and girls’ sports teams from elementary school through college.

West Virginia v. B. P. J. (Jan. 13) – A challenge to the constitutionality of a West Virginia law that bans transgender women and girls from playing on all women’s and girls’ sports teams from middle school through college. 

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. & New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt (Jan. 14; consolidated for one hour of oral arguments) – Whether the New Jersey Transit Corp., a public transportation corporation that provides services in New Jersey and parts of New York and Philadelphia, is an “arm of the state” of New Jersey and therefore cannot be sued in other states’ courts. 

Wolford v. Lopez (Jan. 20) – A challenge to the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that makes it a crime, even for gun owners with a concealed-carry permit, to carry a handgun on private property without the property owner’s affirmative permission. 

M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund (Jan. 20) – How, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, to calculate the amount that an employer must pay when it withdraws from a multiemployer pension fund. 

Trump v. Cook (Jan. 21) – Whether to pause a ruling by a federal judge that bars Trump from firing a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors.