The Supreme Court’s current term is winding down, and legal analyst Jonathan Turley is tempering expectations for the Trump administration’s chances on one of its most high-profile cases.
Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, appeared on “Fox News Sunday” with host Shannon Bream on June 21 to break down what’s coming as the Court approaches the end of its 2025-2026 term. Bream described the expected wave of upcoming opinions as the “Super Bowl” of Supreme Court decisions.
The centerpiece of the conversation was the birthright citizenship case, a challenge that Turley himself has called “a uniquely bad idea” to preserve. But despite his personal views, he was candid about the outlook.
As originally reported, oral arguments in the case were heard on April 1, 2026, and made history when President Trump attended in person, becoming the first sitting president ever to do so. But the arguments themselves, according to Turley, did not signal a favorable outcome for the administration.
“The oral argument did not give a lot of room for hope, particularly with Roberts coming out right away and expressing skepticism,” Turley said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts. “The question is whether anything happened during conference.”
Turley did leave a narrow window open. He pointed to historical precedent, noting that cases can shift after conference during the drafting process. “Roberts himself is often believed to have switched his vote on the individual mandate in the Obamacare case at the last minute,” he said. But he was clear that such a reversal would be unlikely here. “Most of us are expecting this is probably going to be a loss for the administration.”
Former principal deputy assistant attorney general Tom Dupree echoed that assessment. “I think the administration knew going into this that this was going to be a heavy lift for them,” Dupree said. “Judges year after year, decade after decade, have said that birthright citizenship is enshrined in our Constitution. I don’t think there’s going to be a change at the last minute.”
The mood was somewhat brighter when the panel turned to a separate case involving mail-in ballots and federal election deadlines. Turley suggested Trump stands a better chance there.
I think, from oral arguments, it seemed to me that they were going to say that ‘federal election day’ means election day,” Turley said. He added that the drawn-out ballot counting situation in California had only reinforced the argument. “Having this debacle in California, extending the counting for so long, only sort of reaffirms the logic of that.”
He noted the potential complications for states that run combined federal and state elections. “If the Court rules that ‘Election Day’ means election day, those ballots have got to be in on that day.”
With the term expected to wrap in late June or early July, the decisions could arrive any day now.