That case raises questions about whether the central bank is different from other independent agencies and what it means to remove a Fed governor “for cause.”Other presidential priorities that justices could take up in the coming months include Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.“The big theme will be the showdown between the Supreme Court and the president, or the absence of a showdown between the Supreme Court and the president,” said Samuel Bray, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.Court may be cautious about killing Trump’s tariffsDonald Verrilli, who served as solicitor general during the Obama administration, said the court will want to show it’s upholding the traditional checks and balances between the executive branch and the two other branches of government.But predicting when the justices will do that is difficult to predict, he said during a public discussion of the new term at Georgetown Law School.Trump’s tariffs could offer solid ground to enforce limits on presidential power, Verrilli said. But before taking down such a major policy initiative of Trump’s, he added, the justices will feel they need “a pretty strong case on the legal merits.”“You can’t help but think that’s going to be hovering over the decision-making process in this case,” Verrilli said.Conservative justices expected to side with Trump on independent agenciesCourt watchers expect the conservative majority to side with Trump on the issue of presidential control over independent agencies, at least for agencies other than the Federal Reserve.For years, the high court has been chipping away at its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of preventing members of the Federal Trade Commission from being fired without cause.When the majority said Trump could fire for now the last Democratic member of the FTC, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that her colleagues were “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.That’s not the only precedent the court could upend.Court could overturn its 2001 campaign spending restrictionThe Republican Party argues that a 2001 decision limiting how much political parties can spend on advertising and other messaging in coordination with a federal candidate is no longer appropriate.In a case initiated in part by Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator, the GOP says changes to campaign finance rules since 2001 have led to virtually unlimited spending by super Political Action Committees or PACs.As a result, the Republican party argues, political parties have been weakened and leading donors have turned to super PACs that act as “shadow parties,” which hurts the political system.If the court agrees, the practical implication will be that presidents who have control over their parties can exert more influence over elections, said Jennifer Nou, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School.Court could gut key Voting Rights Act protection for minoritiesIn another major election-related case, non-Black voters are challenging the two majority-Black districts in Louisiana’s congressional map.The case – which the court took up last term but did not decide − tests the balancing act that states must strike in protecting the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters.