The Supreme Court is sprinting toward the finish line of its current term, and California is directly in the crosshairs of several of its remaining decisions. With 22 cases still undecided as of this week, the justices are racing to publish opinions before the end of June — and what they decide could reshape gun laws, voting rules, and the balance of power in the federal government in ways that hit Californians immediately.

The Gun Permit Case: California's Law Under Fire

California is one of only five states — along with Hawaii, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey — that requires gun owners to obtain advance permission before bringing a firearm onto private property. The question before the Supreme Court is whether that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The court's conservative supermajority has been aggressively expanding gun rights in recent years, and legal observers are not optimistic about California's law surviving this ruling. A decision against the state would force Sacramento to rewrite a significant piece of its firearms regulation framework, and would likely trigger immediate legal challenges to other California gun restrictions. The ruling is expected any day now.

In a related case already decided this month, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal law banning drug users from owning guns is unconstitutional. The unanimous decision in US v. Hemani — involving a man arrested with a pistol and marijuana — is the same statute used to convict Hunter Biden in 2024. California, which has its own drug-related gun restrictions, will need to examine how that ruling affects its own statutes.

The Mail Ballot Decision: California's Counting Rules May Be at Risk

This one has Sacramento on edge. The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. California currently accepts mail ballots postmarked by Election Day if they arrive within seven days — a rule that has allowed millions of Californians to vote and that is central to how the state runs its elections.

A ruling against these "grace period" policies would not affect California's state races, which are governed by state law. But it could directly invalidate California's rules for federal contests — U.S. House and Senate races — in the November midterms. That means California congressional races, some of which decide House majority control, could be forced into a much faster counting framework than the state currently uses.

Trump vs. Independent Agencies: A Seismic Shift in Federal Power

The case that could have the most far-reaching consequences doesn't involve California by name but will reshape how every Californian interacts with the federal government. The court is expected to rule that President Trump has the authority to fire the leaders of independent federal agencies at will — eliminating a decades-old precedent that kept agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Reserve Board politically independent.

California has been one of the most aggressive states in using federal agencies — particularly the EPA and CFPB — as allies against Trump administration policies. If those agencies become fully accountable to the White House rather than to Congress or independent mandates, California's legal strategy of fighting Trump through regulatory channels becomes significantly weaker.

Watch for these rulings in the next two weeks. The court's end-of-term sprint is never dull — and this year, it's shaping up to be one of the most consequential in a generation.