Supreme Court Issues Major Rulings on Weedkiller, Guns, Immigration: Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court is expected to release even more consequential rulings next week.

Published: 6/25/2026, 3:21:28 PM EDT

Supreme Court Issues Major Rulings on Weedkiller, Guns, Immigration: Key Takeaways — The Supreme Court in Washington on June 23, 2026. (Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times)

The Supreme Court issued a series of decisions on June 25 with far-reaching impact on President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, the Second Amendment, and agribusiness Monsanto.

Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda got a boost as the Supreme Court ruled lower courts were barred from reviewing his decisions to remove deportation protections for certain nationals. In another case, the Supreme Court gave Trump and future presidents greater flexibility in restricting asylum seekers’ attempts to cross the border.

Hawaii’s gun control policy also lost in court, as the justices said the law violated the Second Amendment. The decision continued the court’s emphasis on comparing gun control policies to historical laws in deciding these cases.

Finally, Monsanto won some legal protection against future lawsuits over its weedkiller and allegations that it caused cancer.

Here are the main takeaways from a day packed full of consequential rulings.

Court Greenlights Trump’s Removal of Deportation Protections

During his second term, Trump removed deportation protections—also known as Temporary Protected Status—for nationals from countries across the world. Under this program, immigrants are permitted to stay in the United States for humanitarian reasons, such as conflicts and natural disasters.

On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled that courts have limited power to review the Department of Homeland Security’s decisions to revoke those protections. It based its decision on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that barred judicial review.

The decisions in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot greenlit the Trump administration’s removal of temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians. It also likely paves the way for ending the protections for other nationalities.

However, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion left some room for judges to scrutinize and potentially reject removals of temporary protected status. Judges could rule on arguments over whether the revocations violated the Constitution, Alito said.

A federal judge had ruled in the Haitians’ case that the decision to remove their status was motivated by racial prejudice and likely violated the Constitution. The majority of the court disagreed with that argument on June 25.

Hawaii’s Gun Restrictions Violated Second Amendment

The court ruled 6–3 that a Hawaii law restricting residents from carrying concealed weapons in stores and hotels violates the Constitution.

The law barred handguns from privately owned public places, such as gas stations and shopping malls, without the owner's permission.

Justice Samuel Alito said the state law could not stand because the Second Amendment “has the same meaning in all parts of the United States.”

The Hawaii law “hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” inconveniencing lawful gun owners by forcing them “to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in her dissent that the court’s new ruling means that any law that “regulates the carrying of firearms is presumptively unconstitutional.” As a result of this and other rulings, “judges are now free to insert any meaning they desire into the text of the Second Amendment,” she said.

Monsanto Shielded From Liability in Weedkiller Lawsuits

The Supreme Court, in Monsanto v. Durnell, issued a decision that’s expected to help the agribusiness avoid liability in future complaints about its signature weedkiller Roundup.

A Missouri man named John Durnell had sued, alleging that the company failed to warn about purported cancer risks from exposure to glyphosate, an ingredient in Roundup.

He won a $1.25-million verdict in state court, but the Supreme Court rejected that decision on June 25. In a 7–2 decision, the justices said the verdict rested on a faulty interpretation of state and federal law. They invoked a doctrine known as preemption, which holds that federal law prevails over state law when the two conflict.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Durnell’s case rested on the idea that states could go beyond warning requirements already imposed by the federal government. He pointed to how the EPA had repeatedly declined to require additional warnings for glyphosate.

In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson denied there was a conflict between the state law and the relevant federal law—the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—empowering the EPA to regulate the chemical.

Authorities Can Turn Away Asylum Seekers at the Border

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court said federal law allowed immigration enforcement to turn away asylum seekers at the border.

Its decision was based on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that a migrant who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum. Another section states that migrants who arrive should be inspected by an immigration officer, who is expected to refer them for asylum if they intend to apply.

In its June 25 decision, the court clarified that a migrant arrived only if they crossed the border. “An alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country,” Justice Samuel Alito said in the court’s majority opinion.

Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented. They said the majority had an illogical interpretation and that “any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum.” They added that “more people will die,” predicting that there will be more attempts at illegal border crossings.

Major Cases to Come

As significant as those decisions were, the Supreme Court is expected to release even more consequential rulings next week.

It has yet to rule on multiple cases involving Trump’s policies, including his attempt to restrict who is eligible for birthright citizenship. That case, known as Trump v. Barbara, could prompt the Supreme Court to issue a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Two other Trump-related cases are expected to determine how much flexibility presidents have in firing high-level federal officials. The first, Trump v. Slaughter, could result in the Supreme Court overturning a nearly century-old precedent allowing Congress to place significant restrictions on the president’s ability to fire members of so-called independent agencies.

Another case questioned whether Trump improperly fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Cook challenged the firing on the basis of another law Congress passed to require that the removal of governors like her only occur “for cause.” The outcome of this case appeared less certain as the Supreme Court indicated last year that it viewed the Federal Reserve as deserving more protection than other agencies.

Other cases less directly related to Trump include decisions on campaign spending and on the receipt of mail-in ballots. The Supreme Court is also expected to rule on whether states can bar boys from competing in female sports.

From The Epoch Times