
The Supreme Court will issue a flurry of decisions in the coming weeks. Here's what to expect.
Washington — It's June, and for the Supreme Court, that means the justices will spend the coming days and weeks releasing a flurry of opinions as they prepare for a summer recess before the start of their new term in October.
This year's break is unlikely to be a quiet one for the high court, as the Trump administration has been seeking emergency relief from the justices at a steady clip as it appeals adverse decisions that have stymied implementation of President Trump's second-term agenda.
The Supreme Court has already issued opinions in a handful of big cases that were before it during its current term. The justices ruled 7-2 to uphold a Biden administration rule that regulates unserialized firearms called ghost guns. The court split 4-4 in a dispute over an effort to create the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma, which left in place a state supreme court decision blocking the contract creating the school.
In a pair of unanimous decisions last week, the Supreme Court revived an Ohio woman's lawsuit against her employer that alleged she was discriminated against because she is straight, and blocked Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers.
Amid the ongoing emergency appeals landing before the high court, the justices will be handing down opinions in more than two dozen cases that have yet to be resolved.
Here are the biggest legal battles that are still before the Supreme Court:
Ban on gender-affirming care
The case known as U.S. v. Skrmetti involves a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care. The Biden administration, three families and a physician argued that the ban violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The law prohibits medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under the age of 18. Tennessee is one of 25 states that have passed laws that seek to restrict access to gender-affirming care for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
The legal battle over the ban is the first in which the Supreme Court waded into the debate over health care for transgender youth and it is one of the most significant cases before the justices this term. Following arguments in December, the court's conservative members appeared sympathetic to Tennessee's efforts to restrict access to the medical care for young people experiencing gender dysphoria.
Birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions
The Supreme Court held a rare May argument session to consider a trio of emergency appeals from the Justice Department involving the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The administration asked the high court in March to allow it to partially enforce the policy against states and individuals who are not involved in the three lawsuits while legal challenges to Mr. Trump's order move forward.
If the court grants the Justice Department's request, the administration would be prevented from implementing the birthright citizenship measure against 22 states, seven individuals and two immigrants' rights organizations.
But the dispute also involves whether the district court judges who issued injunctions blocking the policy nationwide had the authority to do so. The Trump administration has argued that these nationwide injunctions have gotten out of control. Judges have granted them in a slew of legal challenges to Mr. Trump's second-term policies.
Some conservative members of the Supreme Court have been skeptical about nationwide injunctions. But during arguments last month, the justices appeared divided on the issue and struggled with some of the practicalities of allowing a challenged policy to broadly take effect while individuals bring their own lawsuits in courts around the country — the likely outcome if the justices decide to bar nationwide injunctions.
Louisiana's congressional map
In a pair of cases arising out of Louisiana's attempt to draw House districts, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to leave in place a new congressional map that includes a second majority-Black district.
The map was first drawn by state Republican lawmakers after the 2020 Census but has since been ensnared in years of legal wrangling. The latest version, now before the Supreme Court, was drawn after a federal district judge invalidated the first redistricting plan as a likely violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it diluted Black voting strength.
That judge ordered the state to put a remedial plan in place that had two majority-Black congressional districts, and state GOP lawmakers ultimately approved a map with that makeup. But the second iteration of the voting boundaries were struck down by a divided three-judge district court panel, which concluded the map was an unlawful racial gerrymander.
The dispute demonstrates the challenges state lawmakers face when trying to balance compliance with the Voting Rights Act without relying too much on race during the drawing of political lines, which can violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
Parental opt-outs from school lessons with LGBTQ themes
In the case known as Mahmoud v. Taylor, the justices are considering whether a Maryland school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' First Amendment right to exercise their religion freely when it requires their children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality that violates the families' religious beliefs.
The dispute arose after the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks for elementary school students into its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022. The board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of reading and instruction that involved the storybooks, but in March 2023, the board said parents would no longer be able to have their kids excused.
With more than 160,000 students, Montgomery County is home to Maryland's largest public school system.
A group of families sued the Board of Education, arguing that denial of the notice and opt-outs violated their right to exercise their religion freely under the First Amendment because it overrode their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to the parents during oral arguments in March and seemed inclined to require that public schools give parents the ability to opt their children out of instruction featuring the books.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
South Carolina moved to withhold state Medicaid funds from a Planned Parenthood affiliate in the state in 2018, kicking off the protracted legal battle now before the Supreme Court.
The state's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood stemmed from an executive order signed by Gov. Henry McMaster that directed South Carolina's health department to deem abortion providers unqualified to provide family-planning services through Medicaid and terminate enrollment agreements.
The organization and Julie Edwards, a Planned Parenthood patient, then filed a lawsuit challenging the termination decision, alleging that it violated Edwards' right to choose her provider under the Medicaid Act.
The question before the Supreme Court is technical: whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue over a state's decision to exclude their chosen provider from their Medicaid programs. If the Supreme Court finds that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue, it would limit patients' ability to enforce a provision of the Medicaid Act that allows them to seek care from the qualified and willing provider of their choosing.
The high court heard oral argument in April and appeared divided on the issue.
Age verification for pornographic websites
Texas enacted a law in 2023 that requires pornography websites to confirm that visitors are at least 18 years old or face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day. Texas is one of at least 19 states with age-verification laws on the books, which their defenders say are aimed at protecting children from accessing sexual content on the internet.
But free speech organizations and trade groups representing the adult entertainment industry argue that these laws burden adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume in violation of the First Amendment.
The issue before the Supreme Court in the case known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is whether a federal appeals court applied the correct standard of judicial review when it evaluated Texas' age-verification law. The U.S. Court of Appeals applied what's known as rational-basis review, the least stringent level. But the trade groups and the Biden administration said that the court should've applied the most demanding standard of review, strict scrutiny, because the age-verification law impedes adults' access to constitutionally protected speech.
The challengers asked the Supreme Court to find that the requirement is subject to strict-scrutiny, and that it cannot satisfy that test.
Texas has been able to enforce the age-verification measure while the case proceeds. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the 5th Circuit applied the wrong standard of review, it could order additional proceedings and allow the law to remain in effect while they play out.
The fate of the FCC's Universal Service Fund
This pair of cases before the Supreme Court involves the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund, a federal program that aims to expand phone and internet access to underserved communities.
The fund is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, which determines the amount telecommunications carriers must contribute to it and disburses that money to program beneficiaries. Contribution fees are based on a percentage of carriers' revenue, and companies often pass on those costs to consumers.
The cases give the high court the chance to revive the nondelegation doctrine, a long-dormant legal principle that says Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority to executive branch agencies. The Supreme Court last invoked the nondelegation doctrine in 1935.
A conservative organization called Consumers' Research challenged the legality of the Universal Service Fund in 2022, arguing that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the FCC, which in turn transferred power to the fund's administrator.
But after arguments in March, the Supreme Court appeared likely to reject the challenge and uphold the Universal Service Fund.
Health and Human Services' preventive care task force
The case Kennedy v. Braidwood Management involves the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an entity within the Department of Health and Human Services that recommends the preventive-care services that must be covered by insurance plans without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act.
Among the preventive services recommended by the task force are screenings for lung, cervical and colorectal cancers, as well as diabetes; statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke; and medication to prevent HIV, known as PrEP.
The task force's recommendation in 2019 that PrEP be covered by insurance plans at no-cost to patients gave rise to the dispute before the Supreme Court. A group of four individuals and two small businesses filed a lawsuit claiming that the Task Force's members were unconstitutionally appointed, rendering its recommendations invalid.
The plaintiffs argued that the task force's structure violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause because it is composed of principal officers who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But the Biden administration and now the Trump administration said the members of the panel are inferior officers subject to supervision by the Health and Human Services secretary, and therefore do not require nomination by the president and Senate approval.
If the Supreme Court finds that task force members are inferior officers, it could send the case back to the appeals court to decide whether Congress gave the head of the Health and Human Services Department the authority to appoint them. Indeed, several days after the court heard arguments in the case, the Supreme Court asked the two sides to file additional briefs addressing that issue.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Social media algorithms boost L.A. protest misinformation in ‘combustible' environment
Offline, in real-world Los Angeles, most Angelenos are having a perfectly normal day. But online, the fires and riots are still raging. The powerful algorithms that fuel social media platforms are feeding users days-old and sometimes completely fake content about the recent unrest in L.A., contributing to a sense of nonstop crisis that doesn't exist beyond a small part of the sprawling city. Unvetted accounts on platforms like X and TikTok, in an apparent bid for clicks, clout and chaos, have preyed on the fears of liberals and conservatives about where last weekend's clashes will lead. An AI-generated fake video on TikTok purported to show a National Guardsman going by the name Bob livestreaming his preparation for 'today's gassing' of protesters. The video has been viewed more than 960,000 times as of Tuesday afternoon. Many in the comments section called the video a fake, but others appeared to believe it was real. (The video, which was debunked by BBC News, appears to have since been taken down.) Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. 'What's happening on social media is similar to the chaos of the information environment around the 2020 George Floyd protests,' said Renée DiResta, an associate research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and an expert on how conspiracy theories spread online. 'People are trying to discern between real current footage and recycled sensational old footage repurposed for political or financial ends.' In 2025, though, AI-generated images are more abundant, and users have splintered onto different online platforms 'where different stories are being told,' DiResta told CNN. On X, where right-wing views tend to flourish, influencers are denouncing the anti-ICE protesters as agitators and terrorists, while on the more left-wing Bluesky, prominent users are condemning President Trump's deployment of the National Guard. Hyperpartisan and hyperactive accounts on X have been wildly overstating the actual volume of unrest in Southern California, furthering the online confusion about the offline situation. One viral post on X falsely claimed on Sunday that there were 'breaking' news reports that Mexico was considering 'military intervention' in Los Angeles. More than 2 million people have viewed the post as of Tuesday afternoon. Dozens of posts on X have spread conspiracy theories claiming the protesters were government-backed or funded by various sources, according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank. Many of those posts have over a million views, and only a handful of them have been fact-checked with X's community notes features. CNN has requested comment from X and TikTok. Recognizing how viral posts can distort public opinion and potentially exacerbate violence, California Governor Gavin Newsom's office on Sunday night pleaded with the public to 'check your sources before sharing info!' in a post on X. The governor's office also directly debunked some of the info. As some protests in L.A. turned ugly on Sunday evening, Senator Ted Cruz shared a shocking video clip of L.A. Police Department cars on fire and wrote, 'this… is… not… peaceful.' The Texas senator's X post implied the video clip was brand-new, but it was actually from 2020, when the racial justice protests tipped into civil unrest. Cruz was reacting to actor James Woods, one of the prominent conservative X users who promoted the five-year-old fire video. Newsom responded to Woods: 'This video is from 2020.' Adding to the confusion, vandals did damage several police cars and set several self-driving cars on fire Sunday evening. But the viral clip reposted by Woods was old. Federal government accounts have been among the misleading sources on social media. A Defense Department 'rapid response' account on X claimed Monday morning that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' But there were no reports of fires burning in L.A. at the time of the Defense Department's claim. Russian and Chinese state media have also amplified images of the unrest, whether real or fake. Chinese state media outlets have 'rapidly seized on the deployment of Marines in the streets of Los Angeles,' the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy, a think tank, said in an analysis shared with CNN. 'In keeping with their coverage of 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, PRC (People's Republic of China) propaganda outlets have used protests in the United States to dent America's image abroad and to suggest that the US government's response to protests at home bears little resemblance to their support for protests overseas,' Bret Schafer, a senior fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, told CNN. Russian state-controlled outlet Sputnik, meanwhile, circulated a photo, also shared by the actor Woods, purporting to show 'pallets of bricks' at a protest site. But that photo is actually from a construction site in New Jersey, according to X's 'community notes' feature. Russian state media outlets have also echoed false or misleading claims from pro-Trump influencers about left-wing groups and figures funding the protests, according to Schafer. Moscow 'seems less interested in scoring propaganda points and more interested in throwing fuel into a combustible domestic information environment,' he said.


New York Times
34 minutes ago
- New York Times
Is 4,700 federal troops a big deployment?
About 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines have been sent to Los Angeles as of Tuesday morning, after President Trump bypassed California leaders who said federal forces were not needed to respond to mostly peaceful protests. Here's how the deployment compares to past military activations on domestic soil responding to social unrest. 2021: Attack on the Capitol In 2021, officials in Washington initially requested 340 National Guard members to help respond to planned protests on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, according to the military. As the protests on Jan. 6 against the 2020 presidential election results deteriorated, with a violent mob attacking police officers and the Capitol, the mayor of Washington D.C., Muriel Bowser, requested assistance, and 1,100 D.C. National Guard members were sent. Later that night, the acting defense secretary at the time, Chris Miller, mobilized 6,200 more National Guard members from other states to ensure peace in the days leading up to former President Joseph R. Biden's inauguration. 2020: George Floyd Protests After protests sprung up around the United States in response to the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, National Guard members were deployed to several states. As of June 3, 2020, the National Guard had deployed more than 18,000 members in 28 states to respond to civil unrest related to Mr. Floyd's murder at the request of the states' governors. Another 42,000 National Guard members were activated at the same time for the coronavirus pandemic response. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Mexican flags at LA protests spark heated debate
Mexican flags at LA protests spark heated debate Mexico's flag has become a defining symbol of the protests in Los Angeles, sparking a heated debate amongst the Latino community about whether or not it's disrespectful. CNN's Rafael Romo breaks down the debate and what the it means to be Mexican-American right now. 01:53 - Source: CNN Vertical Top News 14 videos Mexican flags at LA protests spark heated debate Mexico's flag has become a defining symbol of the protests in Los Angeles, sparking a heated debate amongst the Latino community about whether or not it's disrespectful. CNN's Rafael Romo breaks down the debate and what the it means to be Mexican-American right now. 01:53 - Source: CNN Tanks arrive in DC ahead of US Army parade As the 250th anniversary celebration for the US Army approaches, a freight train of tanks was seen making its way into the nation's capital. The long-planned celebration in Washington will coincide with Trump's 79th birthday and include thousands of troops. The Army had said it has no plans to recognize the president's birthday. 00:40 - Source: CNN Colombian presidential hopeful Miguel Uribe shot in Bogota A Colombian senator and presidential hopeful is in a critical condition after being shot twice at an event in Bogota, according to national police and prosecutors. Police arrested a 15-year-old carrying a Glock pistol, according to the Attorney General's Office. Miguel Uribe expressed intentions to run in the 2026 presidential election for the country's largest opposition party, the center-right Centro Democrático, or Democratic Center. 01:05 - Source: CNN Immigration protests break out in Los Angeles President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to disperse the protests that began in the Los Angeles area in response to immigration raids. Law enforcement authorities and demonstrators have clashed for two days. CNN's Julia Vargas Jones reports. 01:34 - Source: CNN Coco Gauff reacts to winning the French Open Coco Gauff claimed her second career grand slam singles title, defeating world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka in the French Open women's final. 00:46 - Source: CNN Protesters confront authorities following ICE raids in Los Angeles Federal immigration operations in Los Angeles were met by protests. ICE declined to discuss the details of its operations. 00:43 - Source: CNN Attorney for mistakenly deported man talks to Erin Burnett CNN's Erin Burnett talks with Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March, who has been returned to the United States to face federal criminal charges. 02:37 - Source: CNN Trump Admin targets LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month CNN's Ben Hunte breaks down how the Trump Administration has targeted the LGBTQ+ community with its policies in just the first few days of Pride Month. 02:09 - Source: CNN Former 'Diddy' girlfriend reveals 'love contract' A former romantic partner for Sean 'Diddy' Combs using the pseudonym 'Jane' described feeling financially coerced and revealed Combs is still paying for her rent, even as she testified against him at trial. Prosecutors hope the testimony by 'Jane' will drive home charges that include sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. 01:30 - Source: CNN Trump's border czar on 3 US children leaving the country with their deported mothers White House border czar Tom Homan defended the Trump administration's move to deport three US citizen children last week. Homan told CNN's Priscilla Alvarez the children's parents, who were in the US illegally, made a "parental decision" to leave the country together. Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project, denies that the mothers were given a choice whether their children could remain in the US. 01:07 - Source: CNN Trump on Musk: 'The poor guy's got a problem' In a phone call with CNN's Dana Bash, President Donald Trump said he is 'not even thinking about' billionaire Elon Musk and won't be speaking to him in the near future. The comments come a day after Trump and Musk traded barbs on social media as their relationship deteriorated in spectacular public fashion. 00:43 - Source: CNN No aliens here: Research disputes possible 'signs of life' on another planet In response to hints of "biosignatures" found on a world called K2-18b, new research suggests there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding the exoplanet. CNN's Ashley Strickland reports on the ongoing scientific discourse around the search for extraterrestrial life. 00:43 - Source: CNN Reporter: Trump made $1 billion in crypto in 9 months CNN's Erin Burnett talks with Forbes Magazine's Dan Alexander about President Donald Trump's stunning ownership of billions of dollars worth of crypto. 02:19 - Source: CNN Russia launches strikes across Ukraine Russia launched waves of drones and ballistic missiles at multiple targets across a broad swath of Ukraine overnight killing at least four people in the capital Kyiv and wounding around 40 across the country. 00:32 - Source: CNN