The Supreme Court is wrapping up its term, having recently dealt with an emergency appeal stemming from a lower court ruling that aims to delay President Donald Trump’s attempts to reshape the federal government.
Currently, the court has 21 cases to address that have been on the agenda from December to mid-May. Among these is a movement to prohibit Republican-led states from providing care for transgender minors. Additionally, one notable case involves an emergency appeal related to enforcing Trump’s executive orders, specifically concerning the denial of birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented parents.
Typically, the court aims to complete its business by the end of June.
Some of the most significant cases remaining include:
Tennessee and 26 Other States Ban Certain Treatments for Transgender Youth
This case, the longest unresolved, challenges the constitutionality of Tennessee’s law, which critics argue targets transgender minors in an unconstitutional manner. When discussed in December, it seemed the court’s conservative majority leaned towards supporting laws that question claims of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which insists that individuals in similar situations be treated equally.
The court is deliberating on various issues, including attempts to bar transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports and other regulations involving the lives of transgender individuals, like bathroom access. In April, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against Maine for not complying with efforts to keep transgender athletes out of women’s sports.
Trump is also seeking to halt federal funding for gender-related healthcare for those under 19 and aims to push trans individuals out of the military, aligning with the conservative stance of the justices.
Lower Court Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The Supreme Court typically hears few emergency appeals but has taken on the administration’s request to limit orders preventing changes to citizenship policy nationwide.
The central issue here involves whether judges should have the power to issue national injunctions, which have created challenges for both Republican and Democratic administrations over the years.
Recent discussions show the court may want to protect citizenship rights while seeking methods to limit national injunctions. There were concerns voiced about the implications if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born within the country.
Democratic states and various rights groups argue that Trump’s executive orders would disturb a long-standing understanding of birthright citizenship that has been in place for over a century.
Religious Rights and Public School LGBTQ Curriculum
In Montgomery County, Maryland, parents are pushing to remove their children from lessons that feature LGBTQ-themed books added to the school curriculum to reflect community diversity.
The school district previously allowed parents to opt-out of these lessons but reversed that decision, stating it was causing issues. Currently, sex education remains the only subject area with opt-out provisions.
One notable case involves books like “Prince and the Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” introduced in 2022. This issue is part of a larger trend concerning religious rights and a growing number of book bans across schools and libraries.
Louisiana’s Congressional District Mapping Case Returns
The ongoing legal battle regarding Louisiana’s congressional district maps is on its second round at the Supreme Court. Lower courts have invalidated two drafts proposed by the state legislature since 2022, sending legislators back to the drawing board.
This case touches on race and politics concerning district boundaries and is in front of conservative judges who are skeptical about the role of race in political delineation.
The Supreme Court previously mandated the use of a contested map while the lawsuit continues. This particular map created a second congressional district with a significant Black majority, which elected Black Democrats in the 2024 elections.
Texas Online Pornography Law Under Review
Texas is among more than a dozen states attempting to enforce age verification laws for online pornography. The state asserts that these laws are necessary given the easy access to explicit content via smartphones.
The Supreme Court’s question revolves around whether this law infringes on the constitutional rights of adults. The Free Speech Coalition, representing the adult entertainment sector, agrees with protecting minors but argues that Texas’ law is overly broad, requiring personal identification that poses risks of hacking and privacy concerns.
The judges seem open to upholding the law but may also choose to send it back to lower courts for further review. Some expressed concern that previous judicial evaluations didn’t apply the necessary legal rigor to assess whether the Texas law violates First Amendment rights.
