() The start of a new U.S. Supreme Court session Monday could usher in an unprecedented expansion of power for President Donald Trump as the court will hear a number of cases that could shift the boundaries of presidential authority. 

At least three cases that delve into presidential power are already scheduled, and several others that are brewing could also be added. 

Over the course of his nine months in office, Trump unilaterally put into place sweeping tariffs and fired several members of independent agencies in an effort to wrangle control that has for decades fallen under congressional authority. 

Since coming into office for his second term, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority has largely granted Trump’s requests to keep policies via the emergency or so-called “shadow docket.”

At least 20 of Trump’s requests have been granted with unsigned and unreasoned temporary rulings.

While some of these issues will come back to the Supreme Court for a full hearing, their initial orders favoring Trump give valuable insight as to how the court may rule. 

Here are some cases that could reshape presidential power coming to the Supreme Court:

Legality of Trump’s tariffs 

The justices will hear oral arguments over the legality of Trump putting into effect widespread tariffs as a part of his economic strategy.  

Small businesses and several states challenged the tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world, saying they have nearly driven their businesses to bankruptcy.

Two lower courts ruled that Trump didn’t have the power to impose tariffs under an emergency powers law, though a 7-4 appeals court decision has left them in place. 

The Supreme Court agreed to take on the issue in November, a lightning-fast timetable by the court’s typical standards.

The Trump administration argues that an 18th-century law gives it the power to regulate imports and that striking down the tariffs would put the country on “the brink of economic catastrophe.”

In supplemental briefs, legal scholars have argued that Trump’s use of the law was illegal because Congress holds the power to tax.

If the high court sides with Trump, it would significantly increase his taxing and trade powers, ostensibly at the expense of Congress. 

Trump’s takeover of independent agencies 

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over Trump’s power to fire independent agency members at will. The case could result in the court overturning a 90-year-old decision that insulated certain agencies from executive interference.

At issue is Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, who is a Democrat. 

After her removal, Slaughter sued, arguing that her Senate-confirmed position is protected under the law. She said that regulatory decisions will be based more on politics than on board members’ expertise if the president can fire congressionally confirmed board members at will. 

The Supreme Court upheld the firing until it hears the case in December.

The issues mirror a long-standing precedent known as “Humphrey’s Executor.” In that case, the court sided with another FTC commissioner who was fired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he worked to implement the New Deal.

In that ruling, the court unanimously found that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty.

In this case, the Justice Department argued squarely against the Humphrey’s Executor, saying Trump can fire board members for any reason as he works to carry out his agenda. 

If the court sides with Trump, it not only disrupts precedent but also widens the swath of power over congressionally confirmed positions. 

Two other board members of independent agencies asked the justices to also hear their cases if they took up the Slaughter case: Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Firing of Federal Reserve member Lisa Cook

The high court will take up another high-profile Trump firing in January. 

Trump removed Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Board governor, but in a notable departure from other orders the Supreme Court allowed her to remain until they hear her case in full. 

Their move could perhaps signal a different outcome as the court alluded that the Fed is uniquely independent, and their decision will have far-reaching implications for the central bank and the U.S. economy.

Cook, who was appointed to the Fed board by Democratic President Joe Biden, has said she will not leave her job and won’t be “bullied” by Trump.

No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the Fed’s 112-year history, but if Trump succeeds in the high court, the implications of politically motivated firings will be significant. 

The Associated Press contributed to this story.