7 Supreme Court Cases That Black Americans Should Track This Summer

Yahoo

20-05-2025

From voting rights to health care to workplace equality, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on a number of issues this summer that could have major implications for Black Americans.
'In America, for Black people, we've had a long season where our rights were generally respected,' said Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU, who has been closely following the Trump administration's legal moves. 'We have Black elected officials … Black leaders in corporate America, we have extreme poverty, but we also have thriving middle class communities. We have many areas where we have lots of highly educated black people. All of those things rest on a legal framework that allows those rights to be protected.'
Over the next several weeks, the high court is expected to issue rulings that could disrupt that framework. Here are the cases Capital B is keeping an eye on.
Cases: Trump v. CASA, Trump v. New Jersey, and Trump v. Washington
What we know: The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal in response to lower-court rulings in multiple states that blocked a Jan. 19 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. Universal injunctions by these judges have prevented the order from going into effect nationwide.
Why it matters: The cases before the court do not address whether Trump's executive order overturning birthright citizenship is constitutional. Instead, the issue centers on whether federal judges should have the authority to issue decisions on executive orders that affect the entire nation, or whether those powers should be limited to the jurisdiction where the case was heard. Calling universal injunctions into question would put the burden of challenging executive orders on individuals, notably not the states, with no guarantee that relief would come for other groups affected. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court this spring, Trump's lawyers would not commit to following the orders of lower courts should the justices rule against them.
Decision: Expected by late June or early July
Case: Louisiana v. Callais
What we know: Louisiana had its congressional map redrawn to include two majority Black districts. Federal courts ruled the previous map — which contained one majority Black district — violated the Voting Rights Act and discriminated against Black residents, who make up about a third of the state's population. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry proposed the current map in 2022 to amend what he called 'grossly unbalanced districts.'
Opponents argue the Landry-endorsed maps violate the voting rights of 'non-African American voters' under the 14th and 15th Amendments and want to return to the previous map.
Why it matters: If the court rules that a congressional map redrawn to address racial gerrymandering violates the 14th and 15th Amendment rights of 'non-African American voters,' it could inspire conservatives in other states to redraw their own maps to preserve the voting power of white residents at the expense of members of other groups.
In Louisiana, this ruling could also weaken the chance of proportional representation for Black residents in both the state legislature and Congress, where Republicans hold a razor-thin majority.
Decision: Expected by late June or early July
Case: United States v. Skrmetti
What we know: The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled to ban gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender reassignment surgery, in 2023. A group of transgender minors and their families sued to prevent the laws — known as SB1 — from going into effect, arguing it was a violation of their 14th Amendment rights.
Why it matters: Studies show that transgender and nonbinary youth already experience worse mental health outcomes and higher rates of suicide than their cisgender peers; Black transgender and nonbinary youth, even more so. Researchers say that restricting their access to gender-affirming care could further worsen outcomes and quality of life.
Decision: Expected by late June or early July
Case: A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. v. Trump
What we know: The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan immigrants in April. The act is a rarely invoked measure that gives the president the authority to detain or deport citizens of other nations during wartime without a hearing or traditional due process by labeling them as members of an 'enemy nation.' The three prior uses of the act occurred during international conflicts and led to the internment of Japanese people, including Japanese-American citizens, during World War II.
Why it matters: Legal scholars say that granting the executive branch the ability to invoke wartime authority during times of peace is concerning because it jeopardizes the system of checks and balances.
Scholars argue that if such powers were conferred on the president, immigrants from any country could potentially be labeled members of an enemy nation and subject to deportation or being detained. Black immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, and across the diaspora would not be guaranteed due process should the order proceed.
Decision: Court Justices temporarily blocked the Trump administration's ability to carry out deportations on May 16. The case has been sent back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to determine if the immigrants' due process rights were violated.
Case: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
What we know: Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was denied a promotion at the Ohio Department of Youth Services and eventually demoted. She believes that she lost the role to a less experienced gay woman — her boss is also gay. Ames' lawsuit was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, citing a lack of evidence that a pattern of discrimination existed between a minority group (in this case, LGBTQ+ staff) and of the majority group.
Why it matters: Ames sued using the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the extended coverage for sexual orientation and gender identity (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). Typically, members of minority groups can cite historical discrimination as circumstantial evidence in workplace discrimination cases, unlike members of the majority group. The court will decide if this kind of circumstantial evidence can work the other way.
Decision: Expected by late June or early July
Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor
What we know: School board officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, had previously allowed parents to opt-out of books and lessons related to gender or sexual identity as part of its curriculum. They abruptly changed their policy in March 2023 and removed the ability to opt-out. Parents and some religious groups sued, claiming the removal of the opt-out provision violated their religious freedoms.
The issue is solely related to removing their ability to opt-out, not banning the materials. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed with parents but denied their preliminary injunction to reinstate the ability to opt-out while the case is decided.
Why it matters: If the court allows parents to opt-out of school-board approved curriculum on the basis of religious objections, it opens the door to parents opting out of any educational content with which they disagree. Supporters of the opt-out say, if the court sides with the schools, parents could lose their autonomy over which topics their children are taught.
Decision: Expected by late June or early July
Case: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
What we know: The Affordable Care Act provides three agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services the power to recommend preventative care services for cost sharing, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a medication that reduces the risk of contracting HIV, is recommended by the Task Force.
Four individuals and two Christian-based businesses in Texas argued that the structure of these agencies violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because its members are not directly selected by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
Why it matters: These agencies' ability to recommend no-cost preventive care is critical to ensuring affordable access to treatment. In particular, PrEP has significantly reduced HIV infections since the passage of the ACA mandate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health researchers say that limiting access to low-cost PrEP medications would represent a step back in efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and result in more preventable infections for Black people.
Decision: Expected by late June or early July
The post 7 Supreme Court Cases That Black Americans Should Track This Summer appeared first on Capital B News.