The US Supreme Court is expected to wrap up its current term in the coming days, with several major cases still pending, including three involving US President Donald Trump's far-reaching assertion of presidential powers, two important election-related cases, and one involving a crackdown by states on transgender athletes.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has seven disputes still to be resolved, and has set Monday as its next day to issue rulings. Supreme Court terms begin in October and typically wrap up around the end of June, sometimes spilling over into early July.

The Trump cases center on his moves last year to fire a member of the US Federal Reserve Board of Governors and a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and his executive order last year to limit birthright citizenship, three actions that test the boundaries of presidential powers.

The court gave the Republican president victories in two immigration-related cases on Thursday and has backed him in multiple emergency rulings since he returned to office last year, allowing policies that had been blocked by lower courts to take effect while legal challenges proceeded.

The court, however, handed him a significant loss in February when it rejected his sweeping tariffs issued under a law meant for use in national emergencies.

 Firing federal officials

The justices signaled skepticism during arguments in January toward Trump's bid to fire the Fed's Lisa Cook, a move that threatened the central bank's independence.

No other president has tried to fire a Fed official since its founding in 1913. In creating the Fed, Congress passed a law that included provisions intended to insulate it from political interference, requiring that governors be removed by a president only "for cause." The statute does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal.

Trump cited unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud, which Cook denied, to justify the firing. Cook, who has remained in the post while the case plays out, called the allegations a pretext to oust her over monetary policy differences.

The conservative justices during arguments in December signaled they would uphold Trump's firing of Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences. Lower courts ruled Trump exceeded his authority.

US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration, urged the justices to overturn a Supreme Court precedent in the 1935 case Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which has constrained presidential power by protecting the heads of certain independent agencies from removal. In recent decades, the court has narrowed the precedent's reach but stopped short of overturning it.

The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration's arguments that tenure protections given by Congress to the heads of ⁠independent agencies encroach on presidential powers under the US Constitution. The court ruled last year that Trump could remove Slaughter while the case proceeded.

Two election-related decisions are due as the November midterm elections loom, with Republicans seeking to retain control of Congress.

The conservative justices signaled skepticism during arguments in March toward a Mississippi law challenged by Republicans that permits a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. That case could lead to stricter voting rules around the country.

The administration argued in favor of the challenge. Mississippi law permits mail-in ballots from eligible voters to be counted if they were postmarked on or before Election Day but received up to 5 business days after a federal election. A lower court ruled against the law.

Trump, who has made false claims about widespread fraud in US elections, issued an executive order in March to restrict mail-in ballots nationwide, but a federal judge in Boston blocked its implementation on Thursday.

The court heard arguments in December in a Republican-led bid to strike down federal limits on political parties coordinating spending with candidates, in a case involving Vice President JD Vance. Some of the conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the challenge. The court's liberal members seemed inclined to preserve the restrictions.

The dispute centers on whether these limits violate the Constitution's First Amendment ​protection against government abridgment of freedom of speech. A lower court upheld the restrictions.

The court heard arguments in January over the legality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, including universities. The conservative justices appeared ready to uphold the laws. The states said the measures preserve fair competition for women and girls. Critics see them as part of wider efforts to restrict the rights of transgender Americans.

The court heard arguments in April in a case from Virginia that asks whether law enforcement's use of a "geofence" warrant to identify potential suspects based on cellphone data near crime scenes ​violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment bar on unreasonable searches.