Democratic state Sen. Ghazala Hashmi has won her party’s nomination for lieutenant governor of Virginia, NBC News projects, resolving a close Tuesday primary among three main contenders.

Hashmi got 27.4% of the Democratic primary vote, while former Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney got 26.6% and state Sen. Aaron Rouse got 26.3%. The margin between Hashmi and Stoney was approximately 3,600 votes.

Hashmi outran Stoney by a nearly 3-to-1 margin among Democratic primary voters in Richmond City, which overlaps with her state Senate district.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a stunning setback to transgender rights. The US Supreme Court on June 18, 2025, upheld a state law banning gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors -� an issue at the heart of the culture wars that have become a dominant feature of American political life.(AFP)

The justices’ 6-3 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump’s Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to the one in Tennessee.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.

“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.”

In a dissent for the court’s three liberal justices that she summarized aloud in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”

The decision comes amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, President Donald Trump’s administration sued Maine for not complying with the government’s push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports.

The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19 — instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people. In addition, the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court battles continue. The president also signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female.

Trump’s administration has also called for using only therapy, not broader health measures, to treat transgender youths.

The justices acted a month after the United Kingdom’s top court delivered a setback to transgender rights, ruling unanimously that the U.K. Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.

Five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision is not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

But the justices on Wednesday declined to apply the same sort of analysis the court used in 2020 when it found that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in employers’ decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate. Roberts joined that opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also was part of Wednesday’s majority.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also fully joined the majority but wrote separately to emphasize that laws classifying people based on transgender status should not receive any special review by courts. Barrett, also writing for justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that “courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.”

Chase Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued the case for transgender minors and their families, said in a statement that the ruling “is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution.”

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on social media called the ruling a “Landmark VICTORY for Tennessee at SCOTUS in defense of America’s children!”

There are about 300,000 people between the ages of 13 and 17 and 1.3 million adults who identify as transgender in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The Williams Institute is a think tank that researches sexual orientation and gender identity demographics to inform laws and public policy decisions.

When the case was argued in December, then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and families of transgender adolescents had called on the high court to strike down the Tennessee ban as unlawful sex discrimination and protect the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans.

They argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tennessee’s law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, but it allows the same drugs to be used for other purposes.

Soon after Trump took office, the Justice Department told the court that its position had changed.

A major issue in the case was the appropriate level of scrutiny courts should apply to such laws.

The lowest level is known as rational basis review, and almost every law looked at that way is ultimately upheld. Indeed, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati that allowed the Tennessee law to be enforced held that lawmakers acted rationally to regulate medical procedures, well within their authority.

The appeals court reversed a trial court that employed a higher level of review, heightened scrutiny, which applies in cases of sex discrimination. Under this more searching examination, the state must identify an important objective and show that the law helps accomplish it.

Roberts’ 24-page majority opinion was devoted almost entirely to explaining why the Tennessee law, known as SB1, should be evaluated under the lower standard of review. The law’s restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex, Roberts wrote.

Doctors may prescribe puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors of any sex to treat some disorders, but not those relating to transgender status, he wrote.

But in her courtroom statement, Sotomayor asserted that similar arguments were made to defend the Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage that the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

“A ban on interracial marriage could be described in the same way as the majority described SB1,” she said.

Roberts rejected the comparison in his opinion.

Grant Faint/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law banning certain gender-affirming care treatment for minors.

The court ruled 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the opinion. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.

The decision in the case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, is one of the most significant LGBTQ rulings to come from the Supreme Court and marks the first time the justices have weighed in on an anti-trans state law.

“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” Roberts wrote. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.”

The chief justice wrote that the court’s majority found the Tennessee law did not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was leaving “questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

“The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us … but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.

Tennessee is one of 24 states with laws in effect banning all gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

There are 1.6 million Americans over 13 who identify as transgender, including an estimated 300,000 ages 13-17. A third of those people live in states that ban gender-affirming care, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA.

Roberts rejected arguments by a group of transgender teenagers and their parents that denying the kids access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy amounts to sex discrimination.

He said the playing field is level for all under Tennessee’s law, SB1: “No minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria,” he wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, sharply disagreeing with the majority’s ruling.

The decision “invites legislatures to engage in discrimination,” she wrote. It will “authorize untold harm to transgender children and parents and families who love them.”

“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,” she wrote.

ACLU attorney Chase Strangio was the first openly transgender person to argue a case before the Supreme Court in Skrmetti. He called the decision a “devastating loss.”

“Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives,” Strangio said. “The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

People gather and react outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the day it heard arguments over an appeal by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration of a lower court’s decision upholding a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, in Washington, U.S., December 4, 2024. REUTERS/Leah… Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

Summary Transgender rights are a flashpoint in US culture wars

Tennessee bans treating minors for gender dysphoria

Challengers said law violates constitutional rights

Conservative justices power 6-3 ruling; liberals dissent

WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court backed a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday in a setback for transgender rights that could bolster efforts by states to defend other measures targeting transgender people.

The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative justices, decided that the ban does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the law had argued. The ruling affirmed a lower court’s decision upholding Tennessee’s law barring medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria. The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices dissented.

Sign up here.

“Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence. (The law’s) ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty,” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

The ruling will have a broad impact as Tennessee’s law is one of 25 such policies , opens new tab enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States. Various other state restrictions have been enacted in recent years targeting transgender people, from bathroom use to sports participation, some limited to minors but others extending to adults.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed dismay that the court largely deferred to the state legislature’s policy choices in upholding the ban.

“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person’s gender identity and the sex assigned at birth.

The dispute over transgender rights and Tennessee’s ban required the Supreme Court to confront a major flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance against transgender rights.

The Justice Department under Democratic former President Joe Biden ‘s administration had challenged the law. Trump’s administration told the Supreme Court in February that Tennessee’s ban was not unlawful, reversing the position taken by the government under Biden.

Tennessee’s law, passed in 2023, aims to encourage minors to “appreciate their sex” by prohibiting healthcare workers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to help them live as “a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

Providers can be sued and face fines and professional discipline under the law for any violations. The law allows these medications to be used for any other purpose, including to address congenital defects, early-onset puberty or other conditions.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed Wednesday’s ruling, saying that the state legislature had “voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand.”

“In (Wednesday’s) historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,” Skrmetti added.

Several plaintiffs – three transgender minors and their parents, as well as a doctor who provides the type of care at issue – sued to challenge the Tennessee law’s legality. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and LGBT rights group Lambda Legal. Biden’s Justice Department subsequently intervened in the lawsuit, opposing Tennessee’s law.

The challengers argued that the law discriminates against these adolescents based on sex and transgender status, violating the 14th Amendment.

‘DIGNITY AND EQUALITY’

ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio called Wednesday’s ruling “a devastating loss for transgender people, our families and everyone who cares about the Constitution.”

“We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person,” Strangio added.

The ruling will cause real harm by “letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter said.

Tennessee has said it is banning “risky, unproven gender-transition interventions,” pointing to “scientific uncertainty,” tightened restrictions in some European countries and “firsthand accounts of regret and harm” from people who discontinue or reverse treatments.

Tennessee state lawmaker William Lamberth, a Republican who was a lead sponsor of the measure, said after the ruling: “For too long, the Left labeled these harmful drugs and barbaric procedures as ‘gender-affirming care,’ refusing to acknowledge they are unproven, irreversible and come with life-altering disfigurement.”

Medical associations, noting that gender dysphoria is associated with higher rates of suicide, have said gender-affirming care can be life-saving, and that long-term studies show its effectiveness.

Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, a lawyer at the ACLU of Tennessee, said, “This ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not.”

A federal judge blocked the law as likely violating the 14th Amendment but the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the judge’s preliminary injunction.

In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans, 53% of respondents said they supported “laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning.” Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%. Among Democrats, support was at 23% and opposition at 54%.

The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump’s administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military while legal challenges play out. Trump since returning to office has taken actions targeting “gender ideology” and declaring that the U.S. government will recognize two sexes: male and female. Trump issued executive orders curtailing gender-affirming medical treatments for youth under 19 and excluding transgender girls and women from female sports , while rescinding Biden’s orders combating discrimination against gay and transgender people.

Reporting by Andrew Chung in Washington; Additional reporting by John Kruzel in Washington and Jonathan Allen in New York; 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 delivered Wednesday and expected Friday. The justices so far have allowed states to ban gender transition care for minors, lowered the standard for proving workplace discrimination for members of majority groups and deadlocked on the legality of direct public funding for religious schools.

Othere decisions expected by June 30 include rulings on 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. 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. 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.

United States v. Skrmetti Decided: June 18, 2025 Treatment for transgender minors 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: A divided Supreme Court ruled a Tennessee law that prohibits certain gender-transition medical care for minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Tennessee law prohibits minors from using hormones and puberty blockers for such care. Why it matters: The court ruled states have wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty. The decision clears the way for the Tennessee law and for other states to prohibit gender transition care. Laws banning such treatments for young people have been passed in 23 other states in recent years. 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.