The Supreme Court is heading into its summer recess, which means the justices will be issuing a series of hotly-anticipated decisions throughout June. These decisions could yield significant precedents that ripple through the national political environment, impacting congressional and executive agendas alike.
So far, the court has already released rulings on e-cigarettes, a deportation case, ghost guns, and TikTok.
Here are the decisions to look out for as the term comes to a close.
1. ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors
In December 2024, the justices were called upon to enter the gender debate by hearing arguments over Tennessee’s attempt to prevent “gender-affirming care” from being provided to minors. The case focused on the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers, rather than surgical procedures, but raised constitutional questions common to both sets of procedures.
Weeks before leaving office, the Biden administration argued in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee’s law constituted a form of sex-based discrimination that violated the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
Tennessee argued its law was needed to protect underage patients from what it considers to be risky, unproven medical interventions, and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly ruled the law was constitutional.
The Supreme Court seemed inclined to uphold the Sixth Circuit ruling. Some justices seemed hesitant about viewing Tennessee’s law as an unconstitutional form of discrimination, while other justices seemed inclined to take that position. Justice Clarence Thomas asked why the court shouldn’t see the law as an age-based classification rather than a sex-based classification.
2. Nationwide Injunctions, Birthright Citizenship
Lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s agenda have led to federal judges issuing injunctions on a range of policies. In turn, the administration has accused these judges of overstepping their authority, sparking a debate about the separation of power.
The Supreme Court justices looked at three lower court orders that issued nationwide blocks on Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Lawyers representing the administration argue the 14th Amendment does not require that children of illegal immigrants be automatically deemed citizens from birth.
On May 15, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA Inc., and while it is unclear how the justices might rule, they seemed more inclined to address the lawfulness of the various court orders, as opposed to the legality of Trump’s policy.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan seemed to think the administration had misinterpreted the 14th Amendment. “As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Sotomayor said.
Justice Clarence Thomas seemed the most sympathetic to the Trump administration’s position, and suggested that nationwide injunctions do not have a solid historical basis. “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas said.
3. Sex and Gender in School Libraries
Parents sued the Montgomery County School Board in Maryland after it determined that parents could not opt their children out of book readings with controversial content about gender and sexuality. The policy mandated new “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks for elementary school students that promote gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex romance between young children.
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involved parents arguing that the school district violated the First Amendment by compelling their children’s participation in instruction on gender and sexuality. Doing so interfered with their free exercise of religion by curbing parents’ authority over classroom instruction, they said. Hundreds of parents showed up at board meetings while board members accused parents of promoting “hate.”
The justices seemed more sympathetic to the parents. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the fact that the school board was democratically elected didn’t mean it could violate rights. “We’re here to protect the liberty and the Constitution from democratic excess,” he said.
Justice Samuel Alito defended the parents, saying they weren’t trying to alter the board’s curriculum—they merely wanted the right to opt out.
4. Obamacare Preventive Care Panel
In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the federal Preventive Services Task Force, which was created under the Obamacare law, and makes binding recommendations about preventive medical services.
Members of the task force are appointed by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said doing so violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides the president may appoint officers to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities. Such officers must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
During the oral argument, the justices seemed skeptical of arguments from Braidwood Management, a Texas-based company that objected on religious grounds to providing HIV prevention medicine and sexually transmitted disease screenings. The task force had required that employers cover such medicine and services for employees.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the company’s argument assumed the task force was “massively important” even though Congress hadn’t clarified that was the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to downplay the importance of task force members, likening them to the law clerks who help the justices “on some of the things we don’t know anything about.”
5. Age Verification for Pornography Websites
As politicians at the federal level attempt to regulate the digital adult entertainment industry through policies such as mandatory online age verification, Texas passed a law requiring just that.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, stating that it didn’t violate the First Amendment. An adult entertainment industry group, Free Speech Coalition, asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the coalition argued in January’s hearing that the appeals court should have applied a stricter standard, a legal test known as heightened scrutiny, when assessing whether the law accorded with the First Amendment.
The petitioners contended that the age verification procedures, which include presenting government-issued identification, discourage users from accessing the products out of concern that their personal information will be exposed by hackers. Texas argued that its law is constitutional.
The state cited Ginsberg v. New York (1968), which allowed the regulation of the sale of pornography offered in brick-and-mortar bookstores or sidewalk magazine stands on the theory that the material might be harmful to children. In this instance, a standard lower than heightened scrutiny was sufficient to assess the constitutionality of the regulation, the court held in Ginsberg.
The justices seemed divided during oral arguments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said applying the highest level of scrutiny used in cases related to adult entertainment would likely lead to the Texas law being struck down.
Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said voluntary screening measures by the porn industry weren’t effective. And neither was content filtering, which the industry suggested was a better alternative to Texas’s law, as “the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown,” Barrett said.
6. Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood
Abortion returned to the Supreme Court this term with Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case about Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions as well as birth control and pregnancy testing. In April, the justices heard arguments over South Carolina’s attempt to exclude the abortion provider from its state Medicaid program.
At issue is whether the federal Medicaid Act created a right for low-income Americans to choose their providers. The original lawsuit was brought by a Medicaid client who wanted to use Planned Parenthood’s services. If the Supreme Court finds for South Carolina, the ruling could encourage states to eject the organization from their Medicaid networks, Planned Parenthood says.
The case goes back to 2018, when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed a pro-life executive order directing state health officials to “deem abortion clinics unqualified to provide family planning services.” It also required officials to terminate such clinics’ enrollment agreements and deny their enrollment applications in the future.
Justice Elena Kagan said the state “has an obligation to ensure that a person … has a right to choose their doctor.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated some kind of clarification on the matter was necessary because of “confusion” in lower courts.
7. Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gun Companies
U.S. gun manufacturers have asked the Supreme Court to quash a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government, which alleged that U.S. companies were liable for guns being used in violence committed by criminal cartels in Mexico.
Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowed the lawsuit to proceed, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical during oral arguments in March that Mexico had shown the companies were liable under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which generally protects firearms companies from lawsuits based on criminals misusing their products.
The First Circuit ruled the law requires companies to face lawsuits if they knowingly violated state or federal law and if that violation was a proximate cause of a given harm.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested Mexico had not shown the gun companies were liable. Mexico’s attorney said the lawsuit claimed distributors were “knowingly supplying the dealers who we know sell unlawfully across the border.”
Sotomayor replied, “We have repeatedly said mere knowledge is not enough. You have to aid and abet in some way. … You have to intend and take affirmative action to … participate in what they’re doing.”
Justice Clarence Thomas also seemed concerned that the lawsuit didn’t show a violation of particular laws, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to worry that Mexico’s arguments would invite unwarranted judicial intervention.
8. Palestinian Terrorists
In two consolidated cases—Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and United States v. PLO—the Supreme Court justices considered whether the families of terror attack victims could sue the Palestine Liberation Organization terrorist group. In April, the Supreme Court seemed to lean toward upholding the federal Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which empowers Americans harmed by terrorist attacks abroad to sue in U.S. courts.
Mariam Fuld sued under that law after her husband was killed near a West Bank shopping mall in 2018. The attack was perpetrated by a Palestinian terrorist allegedly incited by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which uses a so-called martyrs’ fund for families of Palestinians killed, imprisoned, or injured when attacking Israel.
When the case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Fuld lost because the judges said the law violated due process protections.
During oral argument, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the PLO attorney’s contention that the terror group and the Palestinian Authority are “persons” given status by the Fifth and 14th Amendments, which would grant it due process rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the courts shouldn’t interfere with the lawsuit.
9. Nuclear Waste Storage
Texas objected to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s attempt to license private storage providers to operate an interim storage facility in the Permian Basin, which is the nation’s most productive oil field. The state said the proposed location could jeopardize the oil field.
Texas sued, and the Supreme Court took up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas case after the state won in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judges there said the federal Atomic Energy Act does not authorize the commission to give a private business a license for an interim storage facility. The federal government told the Supreme Court the Fifth Circuit’s decision imposed “novel limits” on the commission’s licensing powers, and “upends” a “44-year-old regulatory framework for licensing storage of spent fuel.”
During oral arguments in March, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the decision to locate the facility “on a concrete platform in the Permian Basin, where we get our oil and gas from.” Also critical was Justice Samuel Alito, who said granting long-lasting licenses for interim storage facilities undermines the wishes of Congress.
