As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to recess before the start of its new term, a slate of high-stakes cases expected to be released in June is poised to reshape the legal landscape in areas including LGBTQIA+ rights, immigration, and government accountability. Several of these cases are a direct result of policies and executive actions initiated during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, which tested the limits of executive power and reshaped the federal judiciary.

Now, years later, the Supreme Court—transformed by three Trump-appointed justices—is being asked to weigh in on the constitutional boundaries of presidential overreach, government accountability, and individual rights. From challenges to inclusive education and gender-affirming care bans to fights over presidential authority and First Amendment protections online, these five cases stand to influence millions of lives. They could also redefine the boundaries of constitutional rights in schools, public policy, and the workplace. Together, these cases serve as a litmus test for how far the judicial branch can go to check executive power, protect civil liberties, and interpret long-standing constitutional protections in a politically polarized era. Here’s a closer look at the key cases to watch.

1. Mahmoud v. Taylor

Oral arguments held April 22, 2025

Issues: LGBTQIA+ rights and inclusive education, parental religious freedom, public education

At the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor is whether public schools violate parents’ religious rights by offering age-appropriate LGBTQIA+-inclusive books without allowing opt-outs. The case originated in Montgomery County, Maryland, and could redefine the limits of religious objections in public school curricula.

The case centers on LGBTQIA+-inclusive children’s books that were introduced into the Montgomery County School District’s curriculum. The district initially allowed parents to opt their children out of exposure to these books, but revoked the policy in March 2023, citing concern about student absenteeism. The plaintiffs, a group of parents including Tamer Mahmoud, are suing the district, arguing that its refusal to allow their children to opt out of lessons or materials featuring LGBTQIA+ themes infringes upon their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

“Schools should be safe and welcoming environments for all students, yet we know LGBTQ+ students are disproportionately likely to experience bullying, harassment, and discrimination in school,” Jackie Perlow, supervising attorney of the Women’s Law Project, said in a press release.

The Women’s Law Project, Community Justice Project, and Pennsylvania-based organizations including Lebo Pride, Education Law Center, and Pennsylvania Youth Congress filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of the school district.

“There is robust research out there that conclusively proves that having inclusive curricula protects students, it deters bullying, it lessens stigma, and it makes the educational environment more successful for all students,” Susan Frietsche, executive director of the Women’s Law Project, said in an interview.

Frietsche said that public schools cannot tailor curricula to individual parental preferences, which would be unmanageable and detrimental to education.

“No one is harmed by the book about a puppy getting lost at a parade, but people are harmed by a group of students standing up and opting out of a class because there might be a mention of LGBTQ people in the curriculum material,” said Frietsche. “That is devastating, and it’s just piling stigma onto these kids who are already hearing so many messages of hate coming not just from extremists on the street corner, but also public officials.”

2. Martin v. United States

Oral arguments held April 29, 2025

Issues: Government accountability, federal immunity

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether individuals can hold the federal government accountable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after suffering harm from a mistaken FBI raid. The case examines fundamental questions about the limits of federal immunity and the government’s responsibility when law enforcement actions go wrong. The ruling could reshape the standards for when individuals can sue the federal government for misconduct.

The case stems from a botched FBI raid in which Curtrina Martin, a private citizen, had his home wrongly targeted. According to court documents, FBI agents forcibly entered Martin’s home in a predawn operation based on flawed intelligence, detaining him and his family at gunpoint, damaging property, and leaving lasting psychological harm, only to later discover they had raided the wrong address.

Martin sued the federal government under the FTCA, which allows private individuals to sue the U.S. for certain wrongful acts committed by federal employees, alleging negligence and violation of his constitutional rights.

The federal government argues that the agents should be shielded by sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the U.S. government from being sued without its consent, unless clearly waived.

A ruling in favor of Martin could significantly broaden the circumstances under which individuals can sue the federal government, particularly in cases involving law enforcement errors. A ruling in favor of the government could limit public recourse in cases of federal misconduct, reinforcing the barrier of sovereign immunity, even when individuals suffer serious harm through no fault of their own.

Additionally, this case could reshape how courts evaluate claims of government wrongdoing, especially in an era of heightened concern over police accountability and civil rights violations. It may set a precedent for how much discretion federal agents are allowed and how citizens can seek redress when that discretion goes awry.

3. Trump v. CASA, Inc.

Arguments held May 15, 2025

Issues: Birthright citizenship, immigration, presidential authority, constitutional equality, executive overreach

In a major constitutional challenge, immigrant advocacy organization CASA and others are taking on the Trump-era executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship. The case could overturn more than a century of precedent rooted in the 14th Amendment.

On the day of oral arguments, CASA, FWD.us, and allies rallied on the Supreme Court steps.

“Citizenship is not a state-by-state privilege. It is a national guarantee,” the coalition stated in a press release. “A decision to weaken these protections would create a chaotic, fragmented citizenship system, where a child born in one state could be a citizen, and in another, stateless.”

Backed by community organizations, impacted immigrants, and legal scholars, CASA v. Trump will be a defining case for immigration rights and constitutional interpretation in 2025.

4. U.S. v. Skrmetti

Arguments held Dec. 4, 2024

Issue: Ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee

A constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s law barring gender-affirming medical care for minors could set the tone for trans rights in the U.S. going forward. The case will determine what level of scrutiny the courts use to look at rights for trans people and in general, sex-based discrimination and sex-based rights.

“We know that folks, trans folks of all backgrounds and races are under attack by extremist policies, politicians, and judges who are unelected, and this is just going to be another attack on youth,” said Heron Greenesmith, the deputy director of policy at Transgender Law Center. “Folks will be impacted specifically by having less access to lifesaving care.”

According to Greenesmith, the case has the potential for reducing the ability to protect against sex-based discrimination, and for trans youth, it has the potential to allow states to ban certain kinds of health care for trans youth. The case could continue the court’s criminalization of bodily autonomy as seen in the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Regardless of the decision, Greenesmith said “the court cannot legislate trans joy, trans resistance, trans care for one another.”

“Before states were covering specific gender-affirming care for some populations, trans folks always protected one another and provided health care for one another,” Greenesmith said. “So while this case is absolutely going to have a potential impact on how some trans youth can access some care, the truth is, we have always been here and will always be here, and we protect one another.”

5. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Oral arguments: Jan. 15, 2025

Issues: First Amendment, online anonymity, age verification laws

The Supreme Court is weighing whether Texas’s HB 1181, which mandates age verification for adult sites, violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that the law burdens adult access to lawful sexual content and opens the door to widespread internet censorship.

“Efforts to childproof the internet not only hurt everyone’s ability to access information, but often give the government far too much leeway to go after speech it doesn’t like — all while failing to actually protect children,” Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a press release. “Pornography is historically the canary in the coal mine when it comes to censorship. Allowing the government to restrict access to sexual content will inevitably lead to more censorship and a more restricted internet for everyone.”

The law applies to any site in which one-third or more of its content is deemed “harmful to minors,” sweeping in porn sites, R-rated films, and even some sexual health resources. As similar laws spread to nearly 20 states, this case could set the standard for how governments regulate online expression in the name of child safety.

“We can protect children online without censoring the internet for adults,” said Alison Boden, the executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association for the adult industry. “There are smarter, more effective solutions to keeping kids from seeing adult materials that don’t violate the First Amendment right of consumers to go online anonymously.”

Editorial Team:

Sahar Fatima, Lead Editor

Carolyn Copeland, Top Editor

Rashmee Kumar, Copy Editor

People wait in line outside the U.S. Supreme Court the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

June 5 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ‘s current term includes cases involving birthright citizenship, guns, gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, online pornography, religious rights, preventive healthcare, Planned Parenthood funding, job discrimination, federal regulatory powers on nuclear waste storage and vape products, voting rights and more.

Here is a look at some of the cases already argued and decided and still to be decided by the justices.

Sign up here.

WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION

The court on June 5 made it easier for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse” discrimination , reviving an Ohio woman’s lawsuit claiming she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. The justices threw out a lower court’s decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio’s Department of Youth Services. Ames said she had a gay supervisor when she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and demoted, with a pay cut, in favor of a gay man. The Supreme Court decided that federal law and its own precedents make clear that there can be no distinctions between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs in discrimination cases.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

The justices on May 15 heard arguments in President Donald Trump ‘s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship , a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as he seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood. The court’s conservative justices seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump’s directive. Those judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. Trump directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.

RELIGIOUS CHARTER SCHOOL

The court on May 22 blocked a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States in a major case involving religious rights in American education. The justices left intact a lower court’s decision that blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The ruling was 4-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself from the case. Oklahoma’s top court found that the proposed school would violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment limits on government involvement in religion. Set up as alternatives to traditional public schools, charter schools typically operate under private management and often feature small class sizes, innovative teaching styles or a particular academic focus. Charter schools are considered public schools under Oklahoma law and draw funding from the state government.

‘GHOST GUNS’

The justices on March 26 upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable “ghost guns” imposed by Democratic former President Joe Biden ‘s administration in a crackdown on firearms whose use has proliferated in crimes nationwide. The 7-2 ruling overturned a lower court’s decision that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its authority in issuing the 2022 rule targeting parts and kits for ghost guns. The court found that the regulation was consistent with a 1968 federal law called the Gun Control Act.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

The court’s conservative justices indicated their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors during arguments on December 4 in a major case that could affect various other state laws targeting transgender people. Biden’s administration appealed a lower court’s decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical treatments including hormones and surgeries for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. That refers to the significant distress that can result from incongruity between a person’s gender identity and the sex they were assigned at birth. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

MEXICO GUNS LAWSUIT

The court on June 5 spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico’s government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices overturned a lower court’s ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson (SWBI.O) , opens new tab and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government.

RELIGIOUS TAX EXEMPTION

The justices on June 5 endorsed a bid by an arm of a Catholic diocese in Wisconsin for a religious exemption from the state’s unemployment insurance tax in the latest ruling in which they took an expansive view of religious rights. They overturned a lower court’s decision that had rejected the tax exemption bid by the Catholic Charities Bureau – a nonprofit corporation operating as the social ministry arm of the Catholic diocese in the city of Superior – and four entities the bureau oversees. The justices concluded that the lower court’s interpretation of the state’s tax exemption amounted to religious discrimination by treating religious denominations unequally.

ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY

The justices heard arguments on January 15 over whether a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of users in an effort to restrict access to minors violates the First Amendment protections against government infringement of speech. The justices expressed worries over the availability of online pornography but also voiced concern over burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material. A trade group for the adult entertainment industry appealed a lower court’s decision upholding the Republican-led state’s age-verification mandate. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

LGBT SCHOOL BOOKS

The court appeared inclined to rule in favor of Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland seeking to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. The justices heard arguments on April 22 in an appeal by parents with children in public schools in Montgomery County after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The parents contend that the school board’s policy of prohibiting opt-outs violates the First Amendment protections for free exercise of religion. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

OBAMACARE PREVENTIVE CARE MANDATE

The court heard arguments on April 21 over the legality of a provision of the Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that helps ensure that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. A lower court determined that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under Obamacare has a major hand in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed under the Constitution. Its 16 members are appointed by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING

The court heard arguments on April 2 in South Carolina’s bid to cut off public funding to Planned Parenthood in a case that could bolster efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of public money. The court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to South Carolina’s stance. A lower court barred the Republican-governed state from terminating funding to Planned Parenthood’s organization’s regional affiliate under the Medicaid health insurance program. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

The justices heard arguments on March 5 over whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the authority to license certain nuclear waste storage facilities amid objections brought by the state of Texas as well as oil industry interests. The U.S. government and a company that was awarded a license by the NRC to operate a facility in western Texas appealed a lower court’s ruling declaring the storage arrangement unlawful. The NRC is the federal agency regulating nuclear energy in the United States. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

FLAVORED VAPE PRODUCTS

The court on April 2 largely backed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s refusal to let two e-cigarette companies sell flavored vape products that regulators consider a health risk to youths. The justices threw out a lower court’s decision that the FDA had failed to follow proper legal procedures under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act when it rejected the applications by the companies, Triton Distribution and Vapetasia, to sell these nicotine-containing products.

EPA AUTHORITY

The court dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency in a 5-4 ruling on March 4 involving a wastewater treatment facility owned by the city of San Francisco that could make it harder for regulators to police water pollution. It ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority under an anti-pollution law by including vague restrictions in a permit issued for the facility, which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The court has limited the EPA’s reach in recent years as part of a series of rulings curbing the power federal regulatory agencies.

UTAH RAILWAY

The justices on May 29 handed a setback to environmentalists by allowing federal agencies to limit the scope of their review of the environmental impact of projects they regulate, as the court bolstered a Utah railway project intended to transport crude oil. The justices overturned a lower court’s decision that had halted the project and had faulted an environmental impact statement issued by a federal agency called the Surface Transportation Board in approving the railway as too limited in scope. The project was challenged by environmentalists and a Colorado county.

TAILPIPE EMISSIONS

The justices appeared sympathetic to a bid by fuel producers to challenge California’s standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law in a case involving the Democratic-governed state’s power to fight greenhouse gases. They heard arguments on April 23 in an appeal by a Valero Energy (VLO.N) , opens new tab subsidiary and fuel industry groups of a lower court’s ruling that they lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations, separate from those of the federal government. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FUND

The justices appeared sympathetic to the Federal Communications Commission’s defense of the mechanism it uses to fund a multi-billion dollar effort to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The court heard arguments on March 26 in an appeal by the FCC and a coalition of interest groups and telecommunications firms of a lower court’s decision that found Congress violated the Constitution’s vesting of legislative authority in Congress. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL MAP

The justices heard arguments on March 24 in a bid by Louisiana officials and civil rights groups to preserve an electoral map that raised the number of Black-majority congressional districts in the state in a legal challenge by a group of voters who called themselves “non-African American.” A panel of three federal judges found that the map laying out Louisiana’s six U.S. House of Representatives districts – with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously – likely violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

DEATH PENALTY CASE

The court on February 25 threw out Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip’s conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire plot and granted him a new trial. The justices in a 5-3 ruling concluded that prosecutors violated their constitutional duty to correct false testimony by their star witness. They reversed a lower court’s decision that had upheld Glossip’s conviction and had allowed his planned execution to move forward despite his claim that prosecutors wrongly withheld evidence that could help his defense.

U.S. TIKTOK BAN

The justices on January 17 upheld a law banning TikTok in the United States on national security grounds if its Chinese parent company ByteDance did not sell the short-video app by a deadline set by Congress. The justices ruled 9-0 that the law, passed by Congress last year and signed by Biden, did not violate the Constitution’s First Amendment protection against government abridgment of free speech. The justices affirmed a lower court’s decision that had upheld the measure. Trump, Biden’s successor, subsequently opted not to enforce the law and gave the parties time to try to reach a deal.

Compiled by Andrew Chung, John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Blake Brittain and Daniel Wiessner; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

The Supreme Court has entered the final, busy stretch of its term, with decisions expected Wednesday and Friday. The justices so far have lowered the standard for proving workplace discrimination for members of majority groups, deadlocked on the legality of direct public funding for religious schools and narrowed the scope of environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, among other decisions.

About 20 more decisions are expected by June 30, including rulings on the legality of state bans on medical care for transgender teens, age verification for online porn, nationwide injunctions on banning birthright citizenship and more.

Here are some of the biggest cases, both decided and not yet decided :

Mahmoud v. Taylor Not yet decided Opting out of books on gender, sexuality What to know: The justices heard a challenge by a group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who objected to rules barring them from taking their children out of lessons that used storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters and themes. The parents said the themes of the stories conflicted with their religious beliefs. Key takeaways: At oral argument April 22, the justices appeared poised to side with the religious parents in what would be a significant expansion of the long-standing practice of allowing opt-outs for reproductive-health classes. The storybooks case will have implications for public schools nationwide. Kennedy (formerly Becerra) v. Braidwood Management Inc. Not yet decided Preventive health-care coverage What to know: A Christian-owned business and others are challenging a provision of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, that requires health plans to provide no-cost preventive care, such as cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception, to millions of Americans. The challengers say having to cover pre-exposure medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, encourages risky homosexual behavior that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Key takeaways: At oral argument April 21, the justices seemed skeptical that members of the expert committee that set the preventive-care mandates were not properly appointed. The challengers argued that those members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. United States v. Skrmetti Not yet decided Treatment for transgender minors What to know: The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a Tennessee law that prohibits certain gender-transition medical care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision will have implications for Tennessee and the 23 other states that have banned similar treatments for transgender young people in recent years. Key takeaways: The court’s conservative majority appeared likely to uphold the ban during oral argument on Oct. 8. Several expressed concern about intervening in a bitter national debate over whether transgender young people should have access to hormones and puberty blockers. The Biden administration and the families of transgender teens initially challenged Tennessee’s law, but the Trump administration withdrew the federal government’s opposition. The case continued with the remaining challengers. Louisiana v. Callais; Robinson v. Callais Not yet decided Louisiana voting map What to know: In response to a lawsuit from civil rights groups, the Louisiana legislature redrew its congressional map to create a second majority-Black district out of six districts in the state. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the map violates the Constitution. The ruling could affect the balance of power in Congress, the landmark Voting Rights Act and how states consider race in drawing electoral maps. Key takeaways: At oral argument March 24, several conservative justices expressed skepticism that the Voting Rights Act’s attempts to redress past discrimination can coexist with the Equal Protection Clause. But they appeared to disagree about whether the new district’s shape was the result of racial considerations or politics, which could impact whether there are enough votes to strike down the map. The court’s three liberals seemed inclined to allow the creation of the second Black-majority district. Trump v. CASA Inc. Not yet decided Nationwide injunctions for birthright citizenship What to know: The Supreme Court added a special session late in the term to review a case involving President Donald Trump’s effort to ban automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. Trump has asked the justices to lift or narrow three nationwide injunctions that have blocked his policy from taking effect while its legality is tested in court. Key takeaways: At oral argument May 15, the justices expressed concern about the proliferation of nationwide injunctions in general, but several appeared sympathetic to states challenging Trump’s executive order and open to a middle ground that would permit judges to issue universal orders in limited circumstances. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Not yet decided Age verification for online porn What to know: The case tests the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring people to prove they are over 18 to access online pornography. Key takeaways: A majority of the justices seemed open to allowing age verification for these sites during oral argument on April 15. Several justices indicated it might be time to rethink how free speech protections apply to pornography, since the internet and smartphones have made it far easier for young people to access adult content.

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission Decided: June 5, 2025 Tax exemptions for church-linked groups Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The justices unanimously sided with a Catholic charity in Wisconsin, saying the state discriminated when it denied the group a tax exemption that the Catholic Church receives. The court reversed a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said Catholic Charities was ineligible for the exemption because the group’s social services programs are “primarily charitable and secular” in nature. Why it matters: The decision has implications for other religiously affiliated nonprofits. The court’s ruling could affect how other states and the federal government consider eligibility for similar tax exemptions for those organizations, including Catholic-affiliated hospitals that employ hundreds of thousands of health-care workers. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Decided: June 5, 2025 Mexico vs. U.S. gun manufacturers Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The Supreme Court justices unanimously blocked the Mexican government from proceeding with a lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers that accused the gun companies of profiting from the illegal smuggling of dangerous weapons to drug cartels in that country. Why it matters: The justices reversed an appeals court ruling and said Mexico failed to show a close enough connection between the guns made in the United States and cartel violence. Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said, “Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.” Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services Decided: June 5, 2025 Reverse discrimination in workplace Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The justices unanimously sided with Marlean Ames, a straight woman who filed a job discrimination lawsuit after she was demoted from her job in the Ohio juvenile corrections agency and replaced by a gay man with less experience. A different job she applied for went to a lesbian, who hadn’t initially expressed interest in it. Ames claimed she faced bias in the workplace after being passed over. Why it matters: The ruling will make it easier for members of majority groups to prove job discrimination claims. The justices struck down a standard used in nearly half the nation’s federal circuits that required people who are White, male or not gay to meet a higher bar to prove workplace bias in certain cases than do individuals whose minority communities have traditionally faced discrimination. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County Decided: May 29, 2025 Environmental reviews on infrastructure projects Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Recused Recused Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The justices unanimously narrowed the scope of environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects like rail lines and pipelines. The case centered on a rail line in Utah that will carry billions of gallons of crude oil. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch recused from the case. Why it matters: Government agencies will now tailor environmental reviews to impacts directly tied to a project. Environmentalists had sought a more holistic review that included more distant impacts, such as how the rail line would affect climate change. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond Decided: May 22, 2025 Publicly funded religious schools What they ruled: The justices deadlocked over the constitutionality of the nation’s first religious public charter school, blocking its creation. Only eight justices cast votes because Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case; the justices did not say how each of them voted. Why it matters: The 4-4 tie upholds a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Catholic School violated state law and the Constitution. Allowing the school would have reshaped American education and blurred the line between church and state. A ruling for St. Isidore would have for the first time allowed direct and complete taxpayer funding of a faith-based school, sanctioning government sponsorship of a curriculum that calls for students to adhere to Catholic beliefs. FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC Decided: April 2, 2025 Sale of candy- and dessert-flavored e-cigarette liquids Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The justices ruled unanimously that the Food and Drug Administration properly rejected applications by two companies to market candy- and dessert-flavored liquids for electronic cigarettes that are popular with youth. Why it matters: Surveys have shown vaping is the most popular form of tobacco use among young people, and they prefer flavored electronic cigarettes. While youth smoking has dropped significantly, health officials are concerned about young people getting hooked on nicotine via flavored vapes. Garland v. VanDerStok Decided: March 26, 2025 Regulating ghost guns Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The justices ruled that untraceable weapons known as “ghost guns” — assembled from parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers — may be regulated as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act. Why it matters: A 7-2 majority upheld the gun regulation imposed in 2022 by the Biden administration that requires background checks, serial numbers and sales records for ghost guns. Law enforcement officials say the homemade weapons are increasingly used in crimes. The regulation will make it easier to track who is buying, selling and using them. The decision could be seen as a departure for the justices, who have largely loosened firearms restrictions in a string of rulings in recent terms. Correction: A previous version of the graphic in this post reversed which justices were in the minority and which dissented, and omitted Justice Barrett’s position. Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch were in the majority, while Alito and Thomas dissented. San Francisco v. the Environmental Protection Agency Decided: March 4, 2025 EPA water regulations Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Partial dissent Partial dissent Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: A divided Supreme Court struck down generic regulations that were required as part of permits that the EPA issues for cities and businesses to discharge pollution into certain bodies of water. San Francisco sued after it was found to have violated the terms of a permit that allowed it to release sewage into the Pacific Ocean. City officials said the EPA exceeded its authority by including provisions that were so vague it was impossible to know when they had crossed a line. Why it matters: The justices weakened the landmark Clean Water Act, continuing a string of high court decisions that have curbed the powers of the EPA to regulate pollution. Environmental groups said the decision will make it harder to rein in polluters, while business groups said the ruling clarifies what standards cities and corporations need to meet to comply with a discharge permit. Glossip v. Oklahoma Decided: Feb. 25, 2025 New trial for death row inmate Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Partial dissent Partial dissent Recused Recused Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: A divided Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip after prosecutors made an extraordinary admission about the withholding of evidence. The case is highly unusual, in that Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official agreed with defense attorneys that Glossip did not receive a fair trial for a 1997 killing. Why it matters: Glossip’s case attracted broad support and became a focus of national debate over the death penalty, which critics say is unjust or unfairly applied. A majority of justices — conservatives as well as liberals — said prosecutors violated their constitutional obligation to correct false testimony from a key witness. The three dissenting justices said the Supreme Court lacked the authority to override Oklahoma’s highest court, which upheld Glossip’s death sentence. TikTok Inc. v. Garland Decided: Jan. 17, 2025 TikTok ban-or-sale law Joined the majority Joined the majority Dissented Dissented Decision author Decision author Liberal bloc Sotomayor Sotomayor Jackson Jackson Kagan Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Roberts Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Barrett Barrett Gorsuch Gorsuch Alito Alito Thomas Thomas What they ruled: The court unanimously upheld a federal law that requires the wildly popular video-sharing app TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its parent company divests from Chinese ownership. Why it matters: The justices said the law, which Congress passed because of security concerns about China’s access to users’ information, does not violate the free speech rights of millions of TikTok users. President Donald Trump promised to “save the app” and has not enforced the ban as negotiations over a possible sale continue.

Justice illustrations by Shelly Tan.

This term, the court will issue decisions impacting immigration, free speech, religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and voting rights.

The Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including: immigration, free speech, religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and voting rights. The ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. In addition to its official docket, the court will also decide cases on its “shadow docket,” or emergency docket, that touch on contentious issues like immigration enforcement and birthright citizenship. Below, read more about key cases on the court’s main and emergency docket, including what they mean for the future of our civil liberties.

LGBTQ RIGHTS U.S. v Skrmetti

The Facts: The question in this case is whether Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Our Argument: The ACLU argues that Tennessee’s ban is a clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status making it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. We made a similar argument in 2020 when, alongside other legal advocates, we successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of LGBTQ clients fired because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, including a transgender woman fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of LGBTQ workers and found “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex” and therefore discrimination against LGBTQ workers was impermissible sex discrimination under Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. Why it Matters: In this case, the Supreme Court must now decide whether states can ban medical treatment for transgender youth with gender dysphoria, but not whether they must. If the court finds Tennessee’s law constitutional, the immediate impact on access to these treatments will be limited to the two states where the bans are already in effect. Importantly, when arguing against transgender people and their families, states with bans like Tennessee’s have relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s opinion Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion. U.S. v. Skrmetti will be a major test of how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care. The court’s ruling could serve as a stepping stone towards further limiting access to abortion, IVF, and birth control.

FREE SPEECH FSC v. Paxton

The Facts: The court must decide if a Texas law that forces people to share personally identifying information — potentially including a picture of themselves, biometric scans, or their government ID — before they can access websites that host some amount of sexual content is a violation of the First Amendment. Our Argument: This law threatens all of our First Amendment rights, regardless of age. It reflects the government’s distaste for specific topics and messages–those about sex–and so it has to pass a very strict test to satisfy the First Amendment. The government argues that the law just has to be reasonable since its goal is to protect kids, but accepting that argument could open the door to all manner of speech regulation – and it doesn’t even actually protect kids. Pornography is often the canary in the coalmine when it comes to protecting free speech. While proponents of age-verification laws liken them to showing your ID before buying pornography in person, the reality of online age verification is much more invasive. In the physical world, age-gating is easy, but the online version of this process is far more burdensome, time-consuming, and risky. Why it Matters: Texas’s age-verification law is another insidious attempt to dismantle our right to access information — and to express ourselves freely. Forcing people to identify themselves to access information online threatens the internet’s very spirit, and it compromises our rights to privacy and free speech without preventing children from accessing porn. In an age marked by data breaches and digital surveillance, linking your identity to your browsing history will inevitably discourage speech—and if that is deemed okay for sexual content, it could keep spreading to any number of other topics or mediums. Several states have already passed similar laws restricting access to social media for minors, and if those regulations continue to pass, the future of the internet looks a lot more fenced in.

RELIGION Mahmoud v. Taylor

ACLU / Yousef Sindi

The Facts: This case asks whether a Maryland school district’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of an LGBTQ-inclusive English curriculum a violation of parents’ free-speech, free-exercise, and substantive-due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland law. Our Argument: In a friend-of-the-court brief, we argue that the “no opt-out” policy does not violate parents’ free exercise First Amendment rights. Although the school district previously allowed opt-outs for any reason from portions of the English Language Arts curriculum featuring storybooks with LGBTQ characters and themes, the growing number of opt-outs proved to be disruptive and divisive. Teachers were forced to divert time and resources to create alternative lessons for students who opted out, and many students simply did not attend school at all for the day. In addition, the opt-outs stigmatized LGBTQ students and those with LGBTQ family members. Why it Matters: Religious liberty is fundamentally important, but it doesn’t force public schools to exempt students from secular lessons that don’t align with their families’ religious views. Mandating opt-outs would wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions, stoking divisiveness and disruption, and undermining a core purpose of public education — to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.

VOTING Robinson v. Callais/Louisiana v. Callais

ACLU / Janie Osborne

The Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether Louisiana’s congressional map, which now includes two majority-Black districts, constitutes a racial gerrymander. Our Argument: With such a significant Black population in Louisiana, it’s imperative that the state’s congressional districts mirror this demographic reality to ensure fair representation. Simply put, the new map allows Black voters to elect candidates who genuinely represent their communities’ concerns and interests. This aligns with the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that electoral maps not dilute the voting power of communities of color. Why it Matters: Louisiana has a long history of racial discrimination in voting, including practices like literacy tests and poll taxes that targeted and disenfranchised Black voters. Establishing a second majority-Black district ensures that the political landscape reflects Louisiana’s diverse population — of which Black people make up one third — and is simply put: fair representation. Louisiana’s actions should set a precedent and inspire similar moves toward improving democratic processes in other states.

THE SHADOW DOCKET

The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2025

The Supreme Court is expected to release opinions in cases the justices heard this term this morning, starting at 10 a.m. Some of them may be among the most important cases of this term, which started in October.

The justices this term heard arguments on transgender rights; in three major cases on religion in public life; in two cases on efforts to curb gun violence; and in two others on limiting speech on the internet. Decisions in some cases have been released already; all are expected by early July.

After the election of President Trump, the court was also inundated with emergency applications arising from his scores of executive orders.

In recent years, some of the court’s biggest decisions have been out of step with public opinion, while others divided the public along partisan lines. The charts below include data from an April survey conducted by researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas that explored whether those gaps persist.

Reverse Discrimination

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

9-0 ruling on June 5

Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas

The Supreme Court ruled that members of majority groups do not need to meet a heightened burden to prove discrimination. The case involved a straight woman who said her employer had discriminated against her in favor of gay colleagues.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education.

What did the lower courts say? The federal civil rights law at issue in the case does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a minority or majority group. But the Sixth Circuit required the plaintiff to prove an additional element if she lacked direct evidence of discrimination: “background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

What was at stake? The case comes amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity.

Where does the public stand? On whether people claiming reverse discrimination should have to meet the same standards as minorities claiming discrimination or should have to show more evidence

Same standards Show more evidence All respondents 70% 30% Democrats 61% 39% Republicans 75% 25% Independents 71% 29% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Gun Makers’ Liability

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

9-0 ruling on June 5

Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas

The Supreme Court ruled the Mexican government may not sue U.S. gun makers over claims that they share the blame for violence by drug cartels.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? Lawyers for the gun industry argue that gun makers are specifically insulated against such lawsuits by a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law, which was passed after an increasing number of lawsuits sought to hold the gun industry liable in domestic mass shootings, gives gun makers broad immunity.

What did the lower courts say? A federal trial judge in Boston, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit, concluding it was prohibited by the 2005 federal law. The judge wrote that the law “bars exactly this type of action from being brought in federal and state courts.”But a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, had revived the suit , finding that it qualified under an exception in the law that authorizes claims for knowing violations of firearms laws that are a direct cause of a plaintiff’s injuries.

What was at stake? The lawsuit by the Mexican government seeks billions of dollars in damages.

Where does the public stand? On whether it should be possible to hold U.S. gun makers financially responsible for crimes committed by Mexican cartels

Should not be possible Should be possible All respondents 64% 37% Democrats 45% 55% Republicans 79% 21% Independents 65% 35% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Religious Charter Schools

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond

4-4 ruling on May 22

The Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether Oklahoma may use government money to run the nation’s first religious charter school, which would have taught a curriculum infused by Catholic doctrine. An earlier ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocking the school will be allowed to stand.Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, and the decision did not include a tally of how each justice voted.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? In earlier cases from Maine and Montana , the court ruled that states that decide to create programs to help parents pay for private schools must allow them to choose religious ones. In the case from Maine, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, distinguished government payment to public schools, saying that “Maine may provide a strictly secular education in its public schools.”

What did the lower courts say? The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the school , with the majority saying it would “create a slippery slope” that could lead to “the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention.”“St. Isidore is a public charter school,” the majority said, noting that the state law allowing such schools requires them to be nonsectarian. “Under both state and federal law,” the majority ruled, “the state is not authorized to establish or fund St. Isidore.”

What was at stake? A decision endorsing religious charter schools would have spurred their spread, extended religion’s extraordinary winning streak at the Supreme Court and further lowered the wall separating church and state.

Where does the public stand? On whether public charter schools can be religious

Cannot be religious Can be religious All respondents 51% 49% Democrats 67% 33% Republicans 34% 66% Independents 52% 48% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Police Use of Excessive Force

Barnes v. Felix

9-0 ruling on May 15

Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas

The Supreme Court ruled that judges must consider all the relevant circumstances in their scrutiny of challenges to police shootings, not just “the moment of threat.” The case concerns Roberto Felix Jr., a police officer in Texas, who shot and killed Ashtian Barnes, a motorist he had pulled over for unpaid tolls, after jumping on Mr. Barnes’s car as he tried to pull away.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? adding that “any of the officers’ actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry.” In a 2020 decision , the Fifth Circuit ruled that only “the moment of threat” should be examined to determine if police officers engaged in excessive force,adding that “any of the officers’ actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry.”

What did the lower courts say? Saying it was bound by the 2020 decision, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled last year in favor of Officer Felix on what it said was a narrow question. “We may only ask whether Officer Felix was in danger ‘at the moment of the threat’ that caused him to use deadly force against Barnes,” Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote for the panel.Still, Judge Higginbotham bemoaned the finding, writing in a concurring opinion: “A routine traffic stop has again ended in the death of an unarmed Black man, and again we cloak a police officer with qualified immunity, shielding his liability.”

What was at stake? Qualified immunity is a powerful legal shield that requires victims of violence by police officers and prison guards to prove that the officials had violated a clearly established constitutional right. The doctrine has been the subject of scathing criticism across the ideological spectrum. The case could broaden the circumstances in which people who have been subject to violence by police can sue.

Where does the public stand? On whether courts should consider any officer actions that may have unnecessarily increased the danger they faced or consider only actions in the seconds before safety was threatened

Any officer actions Only actions in the seconds before All respondents 66% 34% Democrats 77% 23% Republicans 54% 46% Independents 67% 33% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Regulation of Flavored Vapes

Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments

9-0 ruling on April 2

Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had acted lawfully in rejecting applications from two manufacturers of flavored liquids used in e-cigarettes with names like Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies. The court returned one aspect of the case to a lower court for further consideration.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? In a separate case, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the agency had properly rejected a similar application and agreed that the products “posed a serious risk to youth without enough offsetting benefits to adults.”

What did the lower courts say? The Fifth Circuit ruled in 2024 that the agency had changed the rules in the middle of the application process, accusing it of “regulatory switcheroos” that sent the companies “on a wild-goose chase.” More formally, the court said the agency’s actions had been arbitrary and capricious.

What was at stake? The government said that if the court sided with the Fifth Circuit, it would have “far reaching consequences for public health” and frustrate the goal of preventing young Americans from becoming addicted to nicotine and tobacco products.

Where does the public stand? On whether the F.D.A. should be able to ban flavored e-cigarettes

Should be able to ban Should not be able to ban All respondents 65% 35% Democrats 71% 29% Republicans 64% 37% Independents 62% 38% Source: SCOTUSPoll

“Ghost Guns”

Garland v. VanDerStok

7-2 ruling on March 26

Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas

The Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 decision , with a majority opinion written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, upheld the Biden administration’s rules tightening access to so-called “ghost guns,” weapons kits that can be easily assembled into nearly untraceable firearms.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, courts agreed the government could impose some regulations on weapons that met the definition of a firearm. In 2022, under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued regulations that broadened the bureau’s interpretation of the definition of firearm to include homemade guns assembled from the kits.

What did the lower courts say? A federal district judge in Texas, Judge Reed O’Connor, had sided with the challengers and struck down the regulation in 2024, finding that “a weapon parts kit is not a firearm.” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed Judge O’Connor’s ruling. President Trump appointed all three panel members.

What was at stake? The Biden administration had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case after law enforcement agencies reported that ghost guns were increasingly popular and being used to commit crimes. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar had argued that the lower court’s ruling would produce “a flood of untraceable ghost guns into our nation’s communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes.”The regulation did not ban the sale or possession of kits and components that can be assembled to make guns, but it did require manufacturers and sellers to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers and conduct background checks.

Where does the public stand? On whether the government should be able to regulate homemade firearm kits

Should be able to regulate Should not be able to regulate All respondents 75% 25% Democrats 88% 12% Republicans 67% 33% Independents 73% 27% Source: SCOTUSPoll

TikTok, the First Amendment and National Security

TikTok v. Garland

9-0 ruling on Jan. 17

Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that sought to ban the wildly popular app TikTok in the United States unless it were sold. President Trump has so far disregarded the ruling, allowing the app to continue operating while it pursues a deal that would satisfy the administration.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? , the Supreme Court again rejected the invocation of national security to justify limiting speech, ruling in 1971 that the Nixon administration could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from In 1965, during the Cold War, the court unanimously struck down a law requiring people who wanted to receive foreign mail that the government had deemed “Communist political propaganda” to file a request with the Post Office, saying the law violated the First Amendment.A few years laterthe Supreme Court again rejected the invocation of national security to justify limiting speech, ruling in 1971 that the Nixon administration could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers , a secret history of the Vietnam War. The court did so despite government warnings that publishing would imperil intelligence agents and peace talks.

What did the lower courts say? A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in December rejected a challenge to the TikTok law, ruling that it was justified by national security concerns.“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Neomi J. Rao . “Here the government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan acknowledged that the law could result in some Americans losing a means of expression but said Congress had acted to address “grave national security threats it perceived” and not to suppress any particular message.

What was at stake? The decision stands for two propositions: that national security concerns can overcome the Supreme Court’s general commitment to free speech and that Mr. Trump is prepared to sidestep a law passed with lopsided bipartisan majorities and upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Where does the public stand? On whether the government should be able to ban social media platforms controlled by foreign adversaries

Should be able to ban Should not be able to ban All respondents 58% 42% Democrats 50% 50% Republicans 72% 28% Independents 51% 49% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Transition Care for Transgender Youths

United States v. Skrmetti

Not yet decided

The court will decide whether a Tennessee law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medication and providing hormone therapy to transgender minors violates equal protection principles.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? In 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County , the Supreme Court ruled that a 1964 federal civil rights law prohibiting workplace discrimination “because of sex” protected transgender employees. The Tennessee case concerns the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which is written in general terms, rather than a statute that mentions sex.The Biden administration challenged the Tennessee statute, with the government’s lawyers writing that “exactly the same thing is true under the equal protection clause” as was the case under Bostock.

What did the lower courts say? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, reversed that decision. Tennessee’s law, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote for the majority , was a reasonable legislative response to contested medical evidence. “The unsettled, developing, in truth still experimental, nature of treatments in this area surely permits more than one policy approach,” he wrote, “and the Constitution does not favor one over the other.”

What is at stake? Transgender rights have become a ferocious battleground in the culture wars, and initiatives over health care, bathrooms, sports and pronouns have played a prominent role in President Trump’s agenda during the early months of his second term. The ruling could affect more than 20 other states that have laws similar to the one in Tennessee.

Where does the public stand? On whether states should be able to ban transgender minors from obtaining certain treatments

Should be able to ban Should not be able to ban All respondents 64% 36% Democrats 38% 62% Republicans 90% 11% Independents 63% 37% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Birthright Citizenship

Trump v. CASA

Not yet decided

The court will decide the legality of a nationwide pause imposed by lower courts on the enforcement of an executive order signed by President Trump on his first day back in office. The order would end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? The government argues that the temporary pauses on the president’s birthright citizenship order, called nationwide injunctions, are unconstitutional. A debate has simmered for years on whether such injunctions are allowed, but the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue.Meanwhile, the court has held that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, which means that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of the immigration status of the parents. In the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the justices determined that Mr. Wong, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese citizens, was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

What did the lower courts say? . Three lower federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington State have issued injunctions on the executive order while the cases proceed through the court system. The federal judge in Washington State, John C. Coughenour, President Trump’s order was immediately challenged by immigrant groups, individuals and a number of Democratic-led statesThree lower federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington State have issued injunctions on the executive order while the cases proceed through the court system. The federal judge in Washington State, John C. Coughenour, called Mr. Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

What is at stake? A decision by the justices in favor of the Trump administration could lift the national pause on the order ending birthright citizenship, potentially clearing the way for the policy to go into effect in parts of the country as lawsuits continue.

Where does the public stand? On whether the Constitution grants citizenship to people whose parents are in the country unlawfully or temporarily, like everyone else born in the United States

Constitution grants citizenship Should not be given citizenship All respondents 64% 37% Democrats 87% 13% Republicans 39% 61% Independents 67% 33% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Race and Congressional Redistricting

Louisiana v. Callais

Not yet decided

The justices will decide whether to allow Louisiana to continue to use a congressional voting map that includes two majority-Black districts in the state. At issue is whether the Republican-drawn map violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? which prohibits any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.”In other decisions, the Supreme Court has The case has echoes of another voting rights challenge that the justices ruled on just two years ago, a dispute over Alabama’s congressional map. In that case, Allen v. Milligan , the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters with its map, upholding the Voting Rights Act,which prohibits any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.”In other decisions, the Supreme Court has effectively gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which had required federal approval of changes to state and local voting laws in parts of the country with a history of racial discrimination, and curtailed Section 2 of the law , limiting the ability of minority groups to challenge voting restrictions.

What did the lower courts say? A divided panel of federal judges had sided with the challengers , temporarily blocking the state from using the new map. The panel said the new map most likely violated the Constitution because race had been the State Legislature’s predominant consideration.A divided Supreme Court had paused the lower-court decision , temporarily reinstating the congressional map that included the second majority-Black district.

What is at stake? Changes to the congressional map in Louisiana could have national implications. The case could not only shift the boundaries of majority-Black districts in Louisiana but also help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in the coming years, when political control of the chamber has frequently rested on razor-thin margins. Voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the court could also further undermine the Voting Rights Act, a central legislative achievement of the civil rights movement.

Where does the public stand? On whether using race in redistricting is constitutional

It is not constitutional It is constitutional All respondents 72% 28% Democrats 62% 38% Republicans 82% 18% Independents 72% 28% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Age Verification for Porn Sites

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Not yet decided

The court will decide whether a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to sexual materials on the internet by requiring age verification measures can survive First Amendment scrutiny.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? In 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , the justices blocked a federal law quite similar to the one from Texas, applying the most demanding form of judicial review, strict scrutiny, to find that the law impermissibly interfered with adults’ First Amendment rights.

What is at stake? Twenty other states have enacted similar laws. Their supporters say the laws are needed to shield children from graphic, violent and degrading material online. Critics say that there are better ways to do so and that the laws violate the First Amendment rights of adults.

Where does the public stand? On whether states should be able to require websites to verify users’ ages

Should be able to require Should not be able to require All respondents 80% 20% Democrats 75% 25% Republicans 88% 12% Independents 77% 23% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Parental Opt-Outs From Classroom Discussion of L.G.B.T.Q. Themes

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Not yet decided

The Supreme Court will decide whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents to be able to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with gay and transgender characters are discussed if they have religious objections to the books.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? In recent cases, the Supreme Court has expanded the role of religion in public life, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights.The court has ruled in favor of a web designer who said she did not want to create sites for same-sex marriages, a high school football coach who said he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games and a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia that said it could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples.

What did the lower courts say? The Fourth Circuit ruled against the parents. Writing for the majority of a three-judge panel, Judge G. Steven Agee found that there was no evidence that the parents or their children were forced to change their religious beliefs because no opt-out was provided to the lessons. “Simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires,” he wrote.In dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. said the parents had made a modest request. “They do not claim the use of the books is itself unconstitutional,” he wrote. “And they do not seek to ban them. Instead, they only want to opt their children out of the instruction involving such texts.”

What is at stake? A broad ruling from the Supreme Court could disrupt the ability of public schools to manage their curriculums. In earlier cases, parents unsuccessfully challenged course materials on evolution and the Big Bang theory and storybooks about wizards and giants.

Where does the public stand? On whether schools must give parents who have religious objections the ability to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality

Must give the ability Do not need to give the ability All respondents 77% 23% Democrats 69% 31% Republicans 89% 11% Independents 72% 28% Source: SCOTUSPoll

Preventive Care Under the Affordable Care Act

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

Not yet decided

The Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of a task force created as part of the Affordable Care Act that determines what types of preventive care insurance companies must offer for free.

Are there major precedents or recent related decisions? The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits targeting the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s central legislative achievement. The law has survived three previous major challenges at the Supreme Court, including cases in 2012 2015 and 2021 . Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast the decisive vote to save the law in 2012, a crucial milestone where the justices upheld the law’s core mandate that most employers provide health insurance for their workers.

What did the lower courts say? A federal trial judge agreed with the challengers, ruling that members of the task force had been unconstitutionally appointed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit somewhat narrowed the lower court’s ruling but concluded that the task force did indeed have “unreviewable power” to issue preventive-care recommendations that insurers must cover. That independence from supervision by the Health and Human Services secretary, the court found, rendered them “principal officers” who have not been “validly appointed” under the Constitution.