Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to hear thousands of cases decided by the lower courts. This term, it heard oral argument in 58 of those cases. As we head into the last week of June and term, only eight remain undecided.

On Monday morning at 10 am, the U.S. Supreme Court will release opinions in some of the most consequential cases in the country and by the time the fireworks begin on July 4, all eight will almost certainly be public. Collectively, these eight cases represent some of the most consequential for the future of democracy.

For those focused on the 2026 midterm elections, none looms as large as Watson v. RNC – one of two cases I am personally involved in litigating. In Watson, the Court will decide whether the federal law setting a uniform Election Day prevents states from counting mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive in the days afterward.

The stakes are enormous.

If the RNC prevails, hundreds of thousands of lawful voters — people who did everything right — will see their votes discarded because the U.S. Postal Service was too slow in delivering them to election offices. The impact of such a ruling will not be borne evenly among all voters. Republicans brought this case because they believe that rejecting these ballots will disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters — the young and minorities.

In many respects, Watson is a very ordinary case – it does not hinge on the Constitution. It is the culmination of a years-long political project by the Republican Party to reduce the number of mail-in ballots that are ultimately counted.

We have seen this strategy play out in various other forms. Donald Trump's recent executive order seeking to have the U.S. Postal Service refuse to transmit mail-in ballots to citizens not on an approved list is one example. Republican-controlled state legislative efforts to ban drop boxes, shorten return windows, and add technical requirements that serve no purpose except to create reasons to reject ballots are others.

But if the RNC gets its way in Watson, it will immediately impact voters in 19 states that currently allow a grace period for mail-in ballots to be received. It would also pave the way for the GOP to attack other aspects of the voting process.

Also pending is a case I argued in December. In NRSC v. FEC, the Republican Party is attacking a federal campaign finance law that has been on the books for fifty years and has twice survived challenges in the Supreme Court. The only thing that has changed is the composition of the Court.

If the Court sides with the NRSC, it will not just weaken one campaign finance law – it will call into question the entire constitutional foundation underpinning limits on money in politics.

Unlike Watson, which is viewed as a toss-up, most observers expect that I will lose this case and money will gush into American politics in time for 2026.

Also remaining on the docket is Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case. The Court appeared skeptical of the government's position at oral argument in April and it is widely expected that Trump will lose this case.

The fallout of this case, however, may reverberate in other areas. Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship is connected to his broader proof-of-citizenship agenda contained in the SAVE Act.

Though not directly connected to voting or elections, two other pending cases deserve mention. In Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, the Court is considering whether to overrule a ninety-year-old precedent that has protected agency independence.

Trump wants to be able to fire members of independent agencies at will. The Court appears ready to side with Trump with respect to the Federal Trade Commission (Slaughter), but not the Federal Reserve (Cook).

The other three cases still pending before the Court include two — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — focused on transgender athletes, and one — Chatrie v. United States — on the constitutionality of geofence warrants.

If that isn't enough, on Monday morning the Court will also release new orders that may tell us whether they will hear voting cases next term.

In RNC v. Eakin, Republicans are asking the justices to reinstate Pennsylvania's requirement that mail-in voters write a date on their return envelopes — a rule that resulted in more than 10,000 valid ballots being thrown out in a single election. Representing the Democratic Party, my law firm successfully sued to strike down this arbitrary provision of Pennsylvania law.

In RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, the questions are whether Arizona can require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, and whether the NVRA prohibits removing noncitizens from the rolls within the 90-day quiet period before an election. Once again, my law firm is representing the victorious plaintiff below.

The week ahead will no doubt be a difficult one. The remaining eight cases are all important and the pro-democracy forces are unlikely to sweep them all.

But my advice is simple: Watch the docket. The future of the ballot is on it.

➤ Read more premium content