The US Supreme Court is set to hand down seven final-term rulings this week, including cases that will define President Donald Trump’s authority to dismiss independent agency heads, restrict automatic birthright citizenship, and tighten election procedures as the November midterm elections approach. The decisions come amid a flurry of lower-court defeats for the administration’s voting overhaul, with federal judges blocking a database used to verify voter eligibility and rejecting executive orders that demanded proof of citizenship to register.

Central to the docket is Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, a move blocked by lower courts on the grounds that governors may be fired only “for cause.” Trump has cited unverified mortgage fraud allegations, but the administration is asking the court to overturn a 1935 precedent that limits presidential removal power over independent agencies. A ruling in the president’s favour, warn legal observers in Washington, could extend to other Fed governors and even to the central bank’s newly installed chair, Kevin Warsh, compromising the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy free of political pressure. During oral arguments in January, several conservative justices signalled reluctance to let Trump oust Cook before she could contest the accusations. A separate case involving a Federal Trade Commission member tests the same principle, with a broader ruling possibly handing Trump near-unchecked dismissal authority across numerous federal bodies.

Meanwhile, the administration has suffered a series of setbacks in its parallel effort to reshape election rules. Last week, US District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan blocked the Department of Homeland Security from using an immigration database to verify voter rolls, saying the move “threatens the sacred right to vote” and violated privacy laws. A separate order requiring documentary proof of citizenship at registration has been halted by multiple judges. These legal defeats have not deterred the White House, which insists on the need to prevent non-citizen voting—a phenomenon state election officials across the country contend is vanishingly rare. The Senate, however, has refused to change filibuster rules to pass the administration’s proposed voter-ID mandate, frustrating Trump as he warns that Democratic control of Congress could lead to investigations.

The Supreme Court’s election cases could have a comparably wide impact. One asks whether Mississippi may count mail-in ballots that arrive up to five days after Election Day; a ruling that the Constitution demands Election-Day receipt would abolish similar grace periods in 29 states, a prospect voting-rights organisations such as the Brennan Center for Justice in New York say could disenfranchise eligible voters. The court will also decide whether campaign-spending coordination rules violate free speech. On birthright citizenship, the administration argues that a child born on US soil should become a citizen only if at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident—a reversal of 150 years of practice. Chief Justice John Roberts displayed scepticism during arguments, remarking that the 14th Amendment remains “the same Constitution.” Should the court reject the executive order, an estimated 250,000 children born annually to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders would retain their citizenship entitlement.

These rulings will land in a heated pre-midterm environment. The conservative-majority court has given Trump mixed results: it upheld his termination of temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of migrants but struck down his use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. The opinions are expected to be released from Monday, with the final batch likely to emerge later in the week. Legal analysts in the United States expect further challenges regardless of the outcomes.