Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025
The Supreme Court will issue a flurry of consequential decisions in the coming days and weeks before the justices adjourn for summer break.
The high court on Wednesday issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.
There are currently 27 states that have enacted similar laws to restrict gender-transition care, though some of those bans are tied up in legal challenges. Wednesday's ruling means those laws will likely survive those legal challenges. The decision does not have any impact on states that don't have laws banning gender-affirming care.
The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers.
Rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites are some of the major issues the 6-3 conservative majority court has left to decide.
Here are some major cases SCOTUS will decide on in the coming weeks. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates.
Case: Trump v. CASA
Not yet decided
Case argued: May 15, 2025
Read more: Supreme Court hears arguments on birthright citizenship — and whether judges have the power to block Trump's executive orders
The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order.
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order.
What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out.
If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward.
Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 22, 2025
Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward
The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs.
The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation.
What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality.
Case: Louisiana v. Callais
Not yet decided
Case argued: March 24, 2025
Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power
The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color.
A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district.
But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment.
What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections.
Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Not yet decided
Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025
Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you
The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights.
What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well.
Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 2, 2025
Read more: South Carolina wants to ban Medicaid use at Planned Parenthood clinics. Here's what's at stake as the case heads to the Supreme Court.
The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services.
The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings.
What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 minutes ago
Brazil's Bolsonaro used intelligence agency to spy on judges, lawmakers and journalists, police say
RIO DE JANEIRO -- Brazil's federal police accused former president Jair Bolsonaro and 35 others of involvement in a sprawling scheme that used the country's intelligence agency to spy on members of the judiciary, lawmakers and journalists. The seal on the 1,125-page document, which adds to the far-right leader's woes, was lifted by the country's Supreme Court on Wednesday. The federal police document said Bolsonaro was both aware of the scheme and its main beneficiary. Investigator Daniel Carvalho Brasil Nascimento, who chairs the probe, named one of the former president's sons, Rio de Janeiro councilor Carlos Bolsonaro, as a key plot member. The police investigation focuses on a so-called parallel structure in Brazil's intelligence agency. '(Bolsonaro and Carlos) were responsible for the definitions of the criminal organization's strategic guidelines, for choosing the targets of the clandestine actions (against opponents, institutions, the electoral system) so they would politically gain from these operations,' the federal police said. 'They are the decision center and the main recipients of illicit advantages.' Bolsonaro, who governed between 2019 and 2022 and is already barred by Brazil's electoral court from running in next year's elections, is standing on trial over allegations that he attempted a coup to stay in office despite his 2022 defeat to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He denies any wrongdoing and claims he is being politically persecuted. One of the counts Bolsonaro will be sentenced on in the coup case is precisely on leading a criminal organization, which stopped federal police from requesting the same for the accusations revealed on Wednesday, as both investigations entwine. 'If he were accused again for the same facts, this would most likely come up against a prohibition called prohibition obis in idem, a Latin formula that means double punishment or double accusation for the same act,' said João Pedro Padua, a law professor at the Fluminense Federal University. The evidence revealed on Wednesday can still be used in the coup probe. Celso Vilardi, a lawyer for Bolsonaro, told the The Associated Press he was yet to analyze the federal police report and its accusations against his client. Brazil's federal police also accused Luiz Fernando Corrêa, the head of the country's intelligence agency under Lula, of undue interference in investigations. On Tuesday, staffers of the agency issued a statement to push for Corrêa's resignation. He did not respond a request for comment. Brazil's Supreme Court will hand the police investigation to Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet, who will decide whether the investigation will be taken to the Supreme Court for trial. Last year, police arrested five people in connection with the case, under the suspicion that the Brazilian intelligence agency was being misused. Court documents showed then several authorities were under illegal investigation, including former speakers Arthur Lira and Rodrigo Maia, Supreme Court justices, officials of Brazil's environmental agency Ibama, former Sao Paulo Gov. João Doria and prominent political journalists.
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Hungarian police ban Budapest Pride march
Hungarian police said on Thursday in a statement that they were banning the Budapest Pride march of the LGBTQ+ community planned for June 28. Hungary's parliament, in which Prime Minister Viktor Orban's right-wing Fidesz Party has a big majority, passed legislation in March that created a legal basis for police to ban LGBTQ marches, citing the protection of children. This is a developing story. More to come…
Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
ICE raids and their uncertainty scare off workers and baffle businesses
WASHINGTON — Farmers, cattle ranchers and hotel and restaurant managers breathed a sigh of relief last week when President Donald Trump ordered a pause to immigration raids that were disrupting those industries and scaring foreign-born workers off the job. 'There was finally a sense of calm,'' said Rebecca Shi, CEO of the American Business Immigration Coalition. That respite didn't last long. On Wednesday, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin declared, 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine (immigration enforcement) efforts. Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.'' The flipflop baffled businesses trying to figure out the government's actual policy, and Shi says now 'there's fear and worry once more.' 'That's not a way to run business when your employees are at this level of stress and trauma,' she said. Trump campaigned on a promise to deport millions of immigrants working in the United States illegally — an issue that has long fired up his GOP base. The crackdown intensified a few weeks ago when Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, gave the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement a quota of 3,000 arrests a day, up from 650 a day in the first five months of Trump's second term. Suddenly, ICE seemed to be everywhere. 'We saw ICE agents on farms, pointing assault rifles at cows, and removing half the workforce,'' said Shi, whose coalition represents 1,700 employers and supports increased legal immigration. One ICE raid left a New Mexico dairy with just 20 workers, down from 55. 'You can't turn off cows,'' said Beverly Idsinga, the executive director of the Dairy Producers of New Mexico. 'They need to be milked twice a day, fed twice a day.'' Claudio Gonzalez, a chef at Izakaya Gazen in Los Angeles' Little Tokyo district, said many of his Hispanic workers — whether they're in the country legally or not — have been calling out of work recently due to fears that they will be targeted by ICE. His restaurant is a few blocks away from a collection of federal buildings, including an ICE detention center. 'They sometimes are too scared to work their shift,' Gonzalez said. 'They kind of feel like it's based on skin color.' In some places, the problem isn't ICE but rumors of ICE. At cherry-harvesting time in Washington state, many foreign-born workers are staying away from the orchards after hearing reports of impending immigration raids. One operation that usually employs 150 pickers is down to 20. Never mind that there hasn't actually been any sign of ICE in the orchards. 'We've not heard of any real raids,'' said Jon Folden, orchard manager for the farm cooperative Blue Bird in Washington's Wenatchee River Valley. 'We've heard a lot of rumors.'' Jennie Murray, CEO of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum, said some immigrant parents worry that their workplaces will be raided and they'll be hauled off by ICE while their kids are in school. They ask themselves, she said: 'Do I show up and then my second-grader gets off the school bus and doesn't have a parent to raise them? Maybe I shouldn't show up for work.'' The horror stories were conveyed to Trump, members of his administration and lawmakers in Congress by business advocacy and immigration reform groups like Shi's coalition. Last Thursday, the president posted on his Truth Social platform that 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.' It was another case of Trump's political agenda slamming smack into economic reality. With U.S. unemployment low at 4.2%, many businesses are desperate for workers, and immigration provides them. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, foreign-born workers made up less than 19% of employed workers in the United States in 2023. But they accounted for nearly 24% of jobs preparing and serving food and 38% of jobs in farming, fishing and forestry. 'It really is clear to me that the people pushing for these raids that target farms and feed yards and dairies have no idea how farms operate,' Matt Teagarden, CEO of the Kansas Livestock Association, said Tuesday during a virtual press conference. Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, estimated in January that undocumented workers account for 13% of U.S. farm jobs and 7% of jobs in hospitality businesses such as hotels, restaurants and bars. The Pew Research Center found last year that 75% of U.S. registered voters — including 59% of Trump supporters — agreed that undocumented immigrants mostly fill jobs that American citizens don't want. And an influx of immigrants in 2022 and 2023 allowed the United States to overcome an outbreak of inflation without tipping into recession . In the past, economists estimated that America's employers could add no more than 100,000 jobs a month without overheating the economy and igniting inflation. But economists Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson of the Brookings Institution calculated that because of the immigrant arrivals, monthly job growth could reach 160,000 to 200,000 without exerting upward pressure on prices. Now Trump's deportation plans — and the uncertainty around them — are weighing on businesses and the economy. 'The reality is, a significant portion of our industry relies on immigrant labor — skilled, hardworking people who've been part of our workforce for years. When there are sudden crackdowns or raids, it slows timelines, drives up costs, and makes it harder to plan ahead,' says Patrick Murphy, chief investment officer at the Florida building firm Coastal Construction and a former Democratic member of Congress. ' We're not sure from one month to the next what the rules are going to be or how they'll be enforced. That uncertainty makes it really hard to operate a forward-looking business.' Adds Douglas Holtz Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now president of the conservative American Action Forum think tank: 'ICE had detained people who are here lawfully and so now lawful immigrants are afraid to go to work ... All of this goes against other economic objectives the administration might have. The immigration policy and the economic policy are not lining up at all.'' ____ AP Staff Writers Jaime Ding in Los Angeles; Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas; Lisa Mascaro and Chris Megerian in Washington; Mae Anderson and Matt Sedensky in New York, and Associated Press/Report for America journalist Jack Brook in New Orleans contributed to this report.
