2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
Check Out:
Also See:
As Shane Lucado, attorney and founder/CEO of InPerSuit, told GOBankingRates, 'When the Supreme Court turns policy into precedent, it rattles risk forecasts, freezes capital and creates trillions in downstream effects that are rarely accounted for in the headlines. … That ripple affects capital markets within hours, pricing strategies within days and litigation exposure within weeks.'
Below are a few cases from the highest court's 2024-25 term, as well as cases from the upcoming term, that could affect your wallet.
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
In this case, SCOTUS unanimously decided that the state of Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment when it denied tax exemptions to the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). Initially, Wisconsin had denied tax exemption because the CCB, while a religious organization, did not actively proselytize Catholicism. SCOTUS ruled that denying tax exemptions to religious organizations that choose not to proselytize is a form of discrimination and a violation of First Amendment rights.
Bishop James Powers said the ruling enables the church 'to continue serving those in need.'
On a larger scale, the decision could cause revenue losses for states as a result of more nonprofit organizations being able to claim religious tax exceptions (which increases the taxpayer burden of others), as well as allow for costly litigation against states that similarly discriminate against organizations like the CCB.
According to a 2021 Tax Foundation study, religious exemptions already cost the federal government — and thus taxpayers — $2.4 billion annually.
See More:
Also Read:
Commissioner v. Zuch
On June 12, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to limit taxpayer access to the U.S. Tax Court. Essentially, the Tax Court cannot oversee IRS collection disputes once the debt has been settled — such as through a refund offset, as happened in this case. Taxpayers must challenge refund offsets in federal district court instead — which can cost a lot more and be prohibitive for people without the financial means to advance such a legal challenge.
Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA at Cummings & Cummings Law, told GOBankingRates that the decision 'gives the IRS a procedural advantage by allowing it to cut off Tax Court review through internal adjustment. As a result, taxpayers will have less time to request hearings or file petitions, making early engagement with counsel and prompt filing of Tax Court petitions more critical than ever.'
Discover More:
D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security
This is an instance in which SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing for the White House's continued push for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Specifically, the SCOTUS ruling undoes a lower court order that blocked Trump's administration from deporting undocumented immigrants to other countries (not their countries of origin) without first allowing the immigrants to make the case that such deportations might lead to persecution or death.
While a clear victory for Trump and the Department of Homeland Security's continued efforts to curtail undocumented immigration, these mass deportations also could have a deleterious impact on the average American's wallet.
As the Herman Legal Group has reported, an increase in immigration enforcement typically leads to labor shortages, specifically in the fields of agriculture, construction, restaurants and hospitality, housing and cleaning, and factories and manufacturing. Such labor shortages create decreased production and disrupted supply chains. The ultimate result of all that? Consumers pay more for groceries, for meals at a restaurant, for construction costs and more.
The Herman Legal Group suggests the loss of immigrant workers could lead to 'federal and state tax losses in the range of $25 billion annually due to the departure of workers, reduction in consumer spending and the closure of immigrant-owned businesses.'
Trump's recently passed spending bill earmarks as much as $170 billion for immigration and border security — a cost that taxpayers will shoulder for the rest of the decade.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
In this case, SCOTUS overturned a previous 1984 ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws.
Only judges can decide what laws mean, in an effort to prevent bureaucrats from shaping the laws.
This could create a wave of costly litigation challenging various previously established federal regulations, especially in the realms of health care, labor, consumer rights and environmental protection. It also could lead to reductions in the enforcement of things like worker safety, healthcare and student loans.
As the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law has noted, the ruling 'will impact the work of federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, likely making it more difficult for such agencies to pass important regulations that protect public health.' This could lead to increased healthcare costs or even expensive lawsuits if legally actionable public health outbreaks were to occur.
Moore v. United States
In Moore v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (a one-time tax on foreign company profits) is constitutional, even if the taxpayer never receives income from the profits being taxed.
Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA, made clear to GOBankingRates that this ruling 'cements existing MRT liabilities and underscores the necessity of maintaining liquidity for tax obligations that may arise without a corresponding cash distribution. … Individuals with substantial foreign holdings, closely held businesses or large investment portfolios should view this as a prompt to revisit tax strategies now, before similar measures are enacted that could impose significant, unexpected financial obligations.'
Find More:
TikTok Inc. v. Garland
By unanimous decision, SCOTUS upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. At its core, this SCOTUS decision will force ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to sell off the social media platform. If ByteDance does not sell, TikTok will be permanently banned in the U.S., making it inaccessible in America to over 170 million users (including many influencers who profit from the app).
President Trump has continually extended the deadline, which is currently Sept. 17, 2025.
A TikTok ban could be devastating to the social media influencers who have monetized the platform. A recent Ziprecruiter study found that the average successful American TikTok influencer makes approximately $132,000 per year via the app. In America in 2023, TikTok reportedly generated approximately $16 billion in revenue.
Speaking to GOBankingRates about other consequences of a TikTok ban, Sapana Grossi, managing partner in venture capital at the Shah Grossi Law Firm, said TikTok's absence would be especially hard on micro-brands, 'because it will be much more expensive to operate.'
'When the platform went down for a short time earlier this year, the ad prices on other platforms spiked almost immediately,' Grossi said. 'For example, the price for impressions on Meta shot up by 10%. Based on that experience, we know that a ban could raise advertising costs significantly and make it almost impossible for micro-brands, or brands that entirely rely on TikTok's algorithm, to stay in business.'
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
In the Supreme Court's upcoming session (which begins in October), the Court will hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. Sony (among others) has sued Cox Communications, accusing the telecommunications giant of enabling copyright infringement via its customers, some of whom engage in illegal file sharing while utilizing Cox's internet service. Sony maintains Cox has not done enough to prevent such criminality across its broadband service.
Even if Cox wins, the case will be a costly one, forcing the company to potentially spend millions to defend itself. Yet if it loses, Grossi told GOBankingRates, 'Customers should expect to pay more as (Cox) will likely offset their increased expenses. (Cox) would essentially be acting as online police and monitoring accounts aggressively …(cutting) off households and public networks due to illegal activity by someone on the network.
'As a result, (Cox) will have to invest in larger compliance staff, monitoring/filtering software, and in-house legal departments to deal with a rise in litigation. It's very likely they will try to recover these costs through a quiet steady climb through higher monthly rates, administrative fees and reconnection charges. … Such fees rarely disappear, which means that a broad ruling here could lock in higher internet costs for years to come.'
Cox's current internet connection plans range from $50 to $100 per month — whether those prices remain the same could hinge on this case.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
This 2025-26 session case seeks to determine whether a person may sue a government official — rather than the governmental body that official works for — over violations of federal law regarding the religious rights of incarcerated criminals. The case stems from Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian who was forced by his prison's warden to have his dreadlocks cut off. As a result, Landor has argued in federal court that his religious rights were violated by the warden.
If Landor were to win, it's possible that the taxpayer burden could be increased to cover the legal defense costs of government officials. Currently, the Prison Policy Initiative estimates the total U.S. government cost of prisons and jails to be $80.7 billion yearly.
Also See:
Louisiana v. Callais
Louisiana v. Callais is a 2025-26 redistricting case that will dictate the state of Louisiana's congressional map going forward by deciding whether the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 is a Constitutional violation or if it upholds the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.
After the 2020 census, Louisiana drafted a congressional map with six districts. Black voters made up the majority of only one district in that map, despite the fact that approximately one-third of Louisiana voters are Black. A new map was drawn in 2024, adding a second majority-Black voting district.
This case could have serious political implications, both for Louisiana and other states. Redistricting and gerrymandering is already a deeply contentious issue, with the makeup of congressional maps having the power to determine the outcomes of local, state and national elections.
The financial impacts could be wide ranging. If Black voters are underrepresented, it could lead to less funding for healthcare, social services, etc., in their districts. Uncertainty around voting rights can affect investor sentiment in areas perceived as politically unstable. And the taxpayer costs of these political battles continue to add up.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
Another case of major financial import is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, in which SCOTUS will decide to uphold or strike down its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. That ruling upheld federal limitations on political parties with regards to campaign advertising.
If SCOTUS were to strike down the original ruling, political party influence on elections could increase by a substantial margin, with far fewer constraints on political advertising. Like the aforementioned Louisiana v. Callais, this is a case that has the power to sway presidential elections, which in turn could dictate the economic future of the nation.
Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on GOBankingRates.com.
More From GOBankingRates
5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall
7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: 2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge temporarily blocks Texas' Ten Commandments requirement in 11 school districts
A Texas federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked from taking full effect a new state law requiring public schools to display donated posters of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The ruling only applies to the nearly a dozen Texas school districts named in the lawsuit, though attorneys who brought forth the case expressed hope in court that other districts would not implement a law that a federal judge has now found unconstitutional. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery concluded that the law favors Christianity over other faiths, is not neutral with respect to religion and is likely to interfere with families' 'exercise of their sincere religious or nonreligious beliefs in substantial ways.' 'There are ways in which students could be taught any relevant history of the Ten Commandments without the state selecting an official version of scripture, approving it in state law, and then displaying it in every classroom on a permanent basis,' Biery wrote in his opinion, adding that the law 'crosses the line from exposure to coercion.' Texas is expected to appeal the ruling. Once that happens, the case will go to the same federal appeals court where a three-judge panel recently blocked Louisiana's Ten Commandments law from taking effect. Louisiana's attorney general has said she would seek further relief from the full appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the Texas case, Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, concluded on Monday, several weeks after 16 parents of various religious backgrounds, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other religious freedom organizations, sued the state over what their lawyers called "catastrophically unconstitutional' legislation. In court, they argued with a lawyer from the state attorney general's office over the role Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played in developing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of religion. Both parties also debated the influence of the Ten Commandments on the country's legal and educational systems, and whether the version of the Ten Commandments required to go up in schools belongs to a particular religious group. Another group of parents filed a similar lawsuit in Dallas earlier this summer. These suits challenge one of the latest measures passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year. Critics say the law injects religion into the state's public schools, attended by roughly 5.5 million children. The background Senate Bill 10, by Republican Sen. Phil King of Weatherford, would require the Ten Commandments be displayed on a donated poster sized at least 16 by 20 inches come September, when most new state laws go into effect. Gov. Greg Abbott signed it in late June, the day after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a similar law in Louisiana was 'plainly unconstitutional.' The court ruled that requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments would cause an 'irreparable deprivation' of First Amendment rights. An Arkansas judge ruled similarly in a separate case. Supporters argue that the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christianity broadly are vital to understanding U.S. history, a controversial message that has resurged in recent years as part of a broader national movement to undermine the long-held interpretation of church-state separation. Texas GOP lawmakers have passed a number of laws in recent years to further codify their conservative religious views, a trend encouraged and celebrated by Christian leaders. 'This issue is likely to get to the United States Supreme Court,' Biery, the judge, told a San Antonio courtroom prior to opening arguments in the Texas case. What are the plaintiffs saying 'Posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is un-American and un-Baptist,' Griff Martin, a pastor, parent and plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said in a statement. 'S.B. 10 undermines the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of my family's Baptist heritage. Baptists have long held that the government has no role in religion — so that our faith may remain free and authentic.' In the lawsuit brought by the North Texas parents, the plaintiffs, who identify as Christian, said the law was unconstitutional and violated their right to direct their children's upbringing. One of them, a Christian minister, said the displays will offer a message of religious intolerance, 'implying that anyone who does not believe in the state's official religious scripture is an outsider and not fully part of the community.' That message, the minister argued, conflicts with the religious, social justice and civil rights beliefs he seeks to teach his kids. Another North Texas plaintiff, a mother of two, is worried she will be 'forced' to have sensitive and perhaps premature conversations about topics like adultery with her young children — and also 'does not desire that her minor children to be instructed by their school about the biblical conception of adultery,' the suit states. The plaintiffs in the ACLU suit come from diverse religious backgrounds, including families who are nonreligious. Allison Fitzpatrick said in a statement that she fears her children will think they are violating school rules because they don't adhere to commandments like honoring the Sabbath. 'The state of Texas has no right to dictate to children how many gods to worship, which gods to worship, or whether to worship any gods at all,' sad Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit alongside the ACLU. The attorneys called the version of the Ten Commandments in SB 10 a "state-sponsored Protestant version," which was corroborated by their witness, constitutional law professor and religious history expert Steven Green. They argued against the notion that the Ten Commandments were central to the development of the country's legal and educational systems, which Green agreed lacks historical support. The court also found Green's testimony more persuasive than the state's. Although the ACLU lawsuit only applies to 11 school districts, attorneys for the religious freedom organizations hope that a ruling in their favor will signal to districts throughout the rest of the state that they should not comply with the law before the dispute gets resolved by the courts. What the state is saying The attorney general's office argued in the August hearing that the Ten Commandments are part of the nation's history and heritage, and that previous rulings from federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court blocking the commandments from going up in classrooms did not examine that historical significance. Attorneys for the state noted that the Supreme Court recently shot down the test that courts previously relied on to determine when a government had unconstitutionally endorsed or established a religion. And, attorneys pointed out a decades-old ruling in a Nebraska case, regarding a Ten Commandments monument on city property, where an appeals court decided in favor of the monument that displayed the same version of the commandments Texas wants to show in public schools. They relied on that ruling to make the case that SB 10 does not favor a particular religious group. Their viewpoint was supported in court by Mark David Hall, a professor and author who studies religious liberty and church-state relations. Hall, the state's expert witness, recently wrote a book that considers how "Christian Nationalism Is Not an Existential Threat to America or the Church." Attorney William Farrell from the attorney general's office described SB 10's requirement as a "passive display on the wall" that does not rise to the level of coercion. The Ten Commandments posters must only go up if they are donated to the school, he further argued, and the law does not specify what would happen if districts choose not to comply. The state views that as evidence that it poses no threat or harm to families. "SB 10 doesn't restrict anything," Farrell said. "It doesn't exclude anything or specifically require any ... participation by students." What are the schools saying The latest ruling applies to the following school districts: Alamo Heights ISD, North East ISD, Lackland ISD, Northside ISD, Austin ISD, Lake Travis ISD, Dripping Springs ISD, Houston ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD and Plano ISD. Attorneys from Austin ISD, a defendant in the ACLU lawsuit, said during the August hearing that the district has not adopted any policy in response to SB 10, that there is no evidence that the district is doing anything to infringe on families' rights and that the district should not be held responsible for a law passed by the Legislature. They are asking the court to dismiss the Austin school district from the case. Meanwhile, spokespersons for the Texas Education Agency, a defendant in the North Texas suit, did not respond to requests for comment. The TEA was not included as a defendant in the ACLU's more recent filing. A Lancaster ISD spokesperson said that the district was aware of the suit and monitoring it but did not have further comment. A Dallas ISD spokesperson said the district does not comment on pending litigation. DeSoto ISD administrators said in a statement that the school system, which teaches roughly 6,000 kids, operates in alignment with state and federal laws and also remains committed to creating an inclusive learning environment 'for all students and families, regardless of religious background or personal beliefs.' 'DeSoto ISD recognizes the diverse cultural and religious identities represented in its school community and will continue to prioritize the safety, dignity, and educational well-being of every student,' district officials said. 'The district respects the role of parents and guardians in guiding their children's personal and religious development and will strive to remain sensitive to the varying perspectives within its schools.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
'We'll be vindicated': DeSantis says state will appeal judge's ruling in book ban lawsuit
Gov. Ron DeSantis says he anticipates his administration will be "vindicated" in an appeal to a federal judge's ruling last week calling part of the law used to take classic and modern books away from school libraries unconstitutional. At a Aug. 19 press conference in St. Cloud, DeSantis said the state plans to appeal U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza's ruling. Mendoza, of the Middle District of Florida, struck down a portion of HB 1069 the week prior, which prevents books that "describe sexual conduct" from being in public schools. "We will be vindicated in this," DeSantis said. The judge wrote that it's "unclear what the statute actually prohibits." Since DeSantis signed the measure into law in 2023, it's been used to sweep thousands of books off Florida's school library shelves. But responding to a reporter's question about the state's next steps in this lawsuit, DeSantis said that his administration aims to empower parents to have a say in school materials that align with state standards. "Are we really going to keep doing this? You know, we're here to do math and reading and science, we're not here to inject gender theory," DeSantis said. "That's just not appropriate in the schools. We obviously have a right to insist on those standards." In the federal judge's order, Mendoza drew concern with removal of contemporary classics like "The Handmaid's Tale," which was among 23 books removed from Orange County and Volusia County schools. Federal judge's ruling: Florida book ban law partly struck down in federal free speech case For years, the DeSantis administration has defended book removals using the "government speech" doctrine, which says the government has the right to promote its own views without a requirement to provide a platform for opposing views. Yet the judge's order affirmed a win for Penguin Random House and five other publishers, the Authors Guild, two parents and five authors. Jason Muehlhoff, who represents the State Board of Education, wrote in an email Aug. 14 to the USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida that the order was a "bad decision." Muehlhoff, who is the chief deputy solicitor general in Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's office, has said the state plans to appeal. This order didn't cast down all parts of the Florida law, which also restricts teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools outside their assigned sex at birth. The same day as Mendoza's ruling, another federal judge in Florida agreed that the same law discriminated based on sex. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: DeSantis defends Florida law after judge's ruling in book ban lawsuit Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Texas classrooms won't have to display the Ten Commandments — for now
In news that's being hailed as a win for religious freedom advocates — but also has major implications for public school parents — the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday halting the state's enactment of legislation that requires all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Texas Senate Bill 10 was slated to take effect September 1, but U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery has temporarily blocked the law, citing the likelihood of it infringing upon the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. While the Establishment clause bars the government from forcing a specific religious doctrine on the public, the Free Exercise clause safeguards individuals' rights to observe their religious faith free of government influence. In Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, Judge Biery ruled that SB 10 could cause students to experience unconstitutional religious coercion and violate their parents' rights to guide their religious instruction. Displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, he stated, 'are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State's favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school.' Rabbi Mara Nathan, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that, as both a faith leader and public school parent, she welcomed the ruling. 'Children's religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools,' she said. The plaintiffs in the case are public school parents from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious backgrounds. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the national ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation represented the families, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP participating as pro bono counsel. 'Today's decision will ensure that Texas families — not politicians or public-school officials — get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,' said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a statement. 'It sends a strong and resounding message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.' Religious freedom advocates have argued that blurring the lines between church-state separation in public schools not only marginalizes students from religious minority groups but may also send harmful messages to girls and students of color. The 10th commandment states, for example: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.' This scripture alone could be viewed as framing women as solely the property of others, no different from livestock, be they wives or servants. The Bible has also been used to justify enslavement, which the final commandment also alludes to — an ideological argument that could cause psychological or emotional harm to students whose ancestors were enslaved. More broadly, biblical scriptures that take aim at fornication and same-sex relations have been criticized for instilling shame in youth and adults who have sex before marriage or are LGBTQ+. 'Public schools are not Sunday schools,' said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, in a statement. 'Today's decision ensures that our clients' schools will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state's preferred religious beliefs.' Texas is not alone in its failed bid to display the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. In November, a federal judge blocked Louisiana's attempt to blur church-state separation in this way. In June, a group of Maryland parents on the opposite side of the political spectrum emerged victorious when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they could object to LGBTQ+ picture books in their children's classrooms on religious grounds. The ruling has sparked fears that parents will cite their religious beliefs to wield more power over the public school curriculum nationwide. The post Texas classrooms won't have to display the Ten Commandments — for now appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter. Solve the daily Crossword
