Oral Argument Date: October 9, 2024
Decision Date: February 25, 2025
Facts: In 1997, Richard Glossip was sentenced to death for the murder of Barry Van Tresse, primarily based on the testimony of Justin Sneed, who alleged that Glossip paid him $10,000 to carry out the crime. Following Glossip’s conviction, evidence emerged that Sneed had provided false testimony regarding his mental health and psychiatric treatment, and further suggested that Sneed intended to recant his testimony. The Oklahoma Attorney General found procedural misconduct on behalf of the prosecution for failure to disclose or correct these errors and filed a motion in support of Glossip’s case. In 2023, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied Glossip’s request to set aside his conviction, and the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board rejected his clemency request. Subsequently, Glossip appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review his case and granted a stay of his May 18, 2023 execution.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the state of Oklahoma may carry out the execution of Richard Glossip, despite prosecutorial misconduct, suppressed evidence, and other errors that affected Glossip’s conviction and sentencing; (2) Whether the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony; (3) Whether the entirety of suppressed evidence must be considered when determining whether evidence is “material” under Napue v. Illinois; (4) Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to review the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision based on state law.
Holding: In a 5-3 decision, the Court ruled that the prosecution, in failing to correct Sneed’s false testimony, violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony as outlined by Napue v. Illinois. The Court reversed the OCCA ruling and ruled that a new trial is the appropriate remedy for this violation. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the OCCA’s application of Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction Procedures Act (PCPA) depended on the rejection of the Attorney General’s confession of a Napue error, which is solely based on federal law, confirming the Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing the OCCA’s judgment.
Significance: Glossip’s conviction represents a violation of the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects individuals by requiring fair procedures and the due process of law. The Court’s ruling in Glossip v. Oklahoma provides safeguards against wrongful executions, impacting not only Richard Glossip but broader legal and ethical standards regarding criminal justice in the United States.
Oral Argument Date: October 16, 2024
Decision Date: March 4, 2025
Facts: San Francisco, operating a combined sewer system that collects both stormwater runoff and sewage, is required under the Clean Water Act to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit allows the city to deposit pollutants via combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into the Pacific Ocean when its sewer system exceeds capacity. In 2019, San Francisco challenged two “end-result” provisions in their new permit. These requirements hold a permit-holder responsible for the overall water quality of receiving bodies, rather than specifying what a permittee must do or refrain from doing. San Francisco filed an appeal with the EPA Environmental Appeals Board, which was rejected. San Francisco later filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied for review, citing that the EPA may impose any limitations necessary to ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards.
Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
Holding: In the 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, further ordering that the Environmental Protection Agency recover $8,154.00 to the City and County of San Francisco. The Court found that the end-result provisions in San Francisco’s new NPDES permit exceeded the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act.
Significance: This case draws attention to statutory interpretation, environmental law, and particularly administrative law following the overturning of Chevron in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. The Court’s ruling in the light of Loper Bright demonstrates the authorization of federal courts to interpret statutes. Furthermore, this case echoes the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972, which focused on imposing direct restrictions on polluters, updating the Water Pollution Control Act, which worked backward to assign responsibility to polluters. The Court’s ruling will maintain this forward-looking approach in pollution control, but could raise concerns as to whether polluters are held fully responsible for their overall contributions.
Oral Argument Date: February 26, 2025
Decision Date: June 5, 2025
Facts: Marlean Ames, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, alleged that her employer discriminated against her for being a heterosexual woman following personnel changes. In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, who was a gay woman. In 2019, Ames applied for a new position within the Department, for which a gay woman was then selected. That same year, Ames was demoted from her position and replaced by a 25-year-old gay man. Ames filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and then sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court held that Ames did not supply evidence of “background circumstances” or pretext to assert her claim of discrimination over a majority group, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later affirmed this decision.
Issue(s): Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires a plaintiff belonging to a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard, thus demonstrating “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Holding: The Court held in a unanimous decision that the Sixth Circuit’s application of a “background circumstances” rule, requiring plaintiffs belonging to a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard, does not align with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor the Court’s precedents.
Significance: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services has set a foundational precedent for majority-group or reverse discrimination cases. Under Title VII, the Court upheld that the text does not distinguish between majority-group or minority-group plaintiffs, affirming that both types of discrimination must be held to the same evidentiary standard. While U.S. Circuit courts previously varied in their application of the “background circumstances” requirement, the Court’s ruling in this case instills further uniformity for plaintiffs in majority-group discrimination cases.
Oral Argument Date: March 31, 2025
Decision Date: June 5, 2025
Facts: The Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) was denied an exemption from Wisconsin unemployment insurance contributions by the Department of Workforce Development in 2016. Under Wisconsin law, nonprofit organizations that operate “primarily for religious purposes” and that are “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches” are exempt from such taxes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the CCB did not operate primarily for religious purposes, emphasizing that the CCB did not require service recipients to be of the Catholic faith or supply religious materials to program participants, finding their activities, such as providing job training for people with disabilities or sponsoring food pantries, to be charitable and secular. The CCB argued that the court’s ruling violates their religious freedom under the First Amendment.
Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
Holding: In the unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court ruled that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of state law violates the First Amendment.
Significance: The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions, scrutinizing any state-sponsored denominational preference. Because the CCB serves people outside of the Catholic faith without attempting to convert them, the Court found that by denying a tax exemption to the CCB, Wisconsin demonstrated a preference for religious denominations that proselytize or only serve co-religionists. This ruling challenges a state’s definition of a religious organization and reflects an expansion of the Court’s religious freedom protections, particularly in a public service capacity.
Oral Argument Date: November 12, 2024
Decision Date: April 22, 2025
Facts: Monsalvo Velasquez, who entered the United States without authorization in, was granted a 60-day voluntary departure period, with the 60th day falling on Saturday, December 11, 2021. Velásquez filed a motion to reopen proceedings on Monday, December 13, 2021, but the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his motion, ruling that Velasquez’s voluntary departure period had passed. Velasquez petitioned judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but the court found that the voluntary departure deadline, as outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(2), does not include an extension on deadlines that fall on weekends or public holidays.
Issue(s): Whether, when a noncitizen’s voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).
Holding: The Court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2), a voluntary-departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day. In the opinion by Justice Gorsuch, the Court found that §1229c(b)(2) employs a specialized understanding of the term “days” as utilized in legal settings. For example, part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) understands the term as excluding weekends and federal holidays. The Court found that, if the term “days” is held to this understanding in the same section of IIRIRA, then the term should be given identical meaning throughout the section.
Significance: The Court’s decision demonstrates a protection of due process and equitable treatment for noncitizens navigating the immigration system. By recognizing that voluntary-departure deadlines should not unfairly penalize certain individuals when they fall on weekends or holidays, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that procedural fairness must extend to all people. In this case, the Court ensured that technicalities do not become barriers to justice, and instead upheld a consistent and clear application of immigration law that can be applied throughout §1229c(b)(2) in future cases.
Oral Argument Date: April 30, 2025
Decision Date: May 22, 2025
Facts: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School held a contract with the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board (OSVCSB), although Oklahoma law expects charter schools to remain nonsectarian. This contract omitted standard provisions prohibiting religious affiliation, while affirming St. Isidore’s religious mission, making this the nation’s first taxpayer-funded religious charter school. The Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, filed an action against the OSVCSB, contending that the contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the federal Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Assuming original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted relief to the State and ordered a writ of mandamus rescinding the contract, holding that the contract violated state and federal law, including constitutional provisions prohibiting government establishment of religion.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the decisions of a privately owned and operated school are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students; (2) Whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or whether the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.
Holding: In a per curiam opinion by an equally divided Court, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, ruling that St. Isodore’s contract violated state and federal law.
Significance: The Court’s equal division in this decision demonstrates the complexity of the separation between church and state in public education. This case has drawn a clear line between religious freedom and public accountability, standing firm on the separation between church and state, particularly in the spending of public funds. Further implications of the Court’s ruling may affect educational equity and the rights of students and religious practices in publicly funded institutions.
Oral Argument Date: December 10, 2024
Decision Date: May 29, 2025
Facts: The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the construction and operation of an 88-mile oil-transport railway in Utah’s Uinta Basin. The STB approved the project in 2021, after a required environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the STB’s environmental impact statement (EIS) omitted analysis of certain environmental impacts, such as the effects of increased oil drilling in Utah and oil refining on the Gulf Coast. The STB argued these omissions were justified because they either had a minimal likelihood of causing significant impacts or fell outside the scope of regulatory authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit disagreed, finding that there were multiple NEPA violations in the EIS, noting foreseeable impacts from upstream oil drilling and downstream oil refining projects.
Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Agency requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
Holding: In the 8-0 opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court ruled to reverse and remand the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, finding that it failed to afford substantial judicial deference to the STB, as required in NEPA cases. Furthermore, the Court held that the D.C. Circuit misinterpreted NEPA regarding the effects of upstream and downstream projects, deciding that the Board is not required to consider environmental effects that are separate in time or place from their project.
Significance: The Court’s unanimous decision limits the responsibility of federal agencies to consider broader, cumulative impacts on major infrastructure projects, possibly jeopardizing the health of the environment and marginalized communities disproportionately affected by pollution. In this ruling, the Court weakened a significant tool used by environmental activists to hold agencies accountable for indirect but foreseeable harms. This case underscores the tension between regulatory efficiency and the rights of communities to be protected from environmental degradation that federal projects may support.
Oral Argument Date: April 28, 2025
Decision Date: June 12, 2025
Facts: A.J.T. suffers from Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a type of epilepsy resulting in seizures so severe in the mornings that she cannot attend school until noon. While Osseo provided some accommodations, it denied the family’s request for evening at-home instruction, citing a lack of resources, concern about setting a precedent, and Minnesota law. In 2020, A.J.T. filed a complaint for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and in 2021, sued Osseo for disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2023, district courts found that Osseo violated IDEA and required the District to extend A.J.T.’s instructional hours, but also ruled that A.J.T. had not shown that Osseo acted with “bad faith or gross misconduct” as required by precedent set in Monahan v. State of Nebraska on their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed both lower court decisions.
Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Holding: In a unanimous decision, the Court vacated and remanded the lower courts’ rulings. The Court decided that schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education need not reach the heightened evidentiary standard of showing “bad faith or gross misconduct,” and are instead subject to the same standard as other disability discrimination cases.
Significance: The Court’s ruling in this case has set a significant precedent for disabled students seeking to vindicate their rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. By rejecting this standard, the Court has opened doors for students with disabilities and their families across the country to enjoy fair and equal access to adequate education and accommodations, all under fair evidentiary standards and due process of law.
Oral Argument Date: December 4, 2024
Decision Date: June 18, 2025
Facts: In 2023, Tennessee passed legislation restricting certain gender-affirming care treatments for minors, such as administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or sex-transition surgeries. These laws also required transgender youth receiving such care to discontinue treatments within nine months of the law’s effective date. Following their passage, transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers challenged these laws in federal court. District courts initially granted injunctions, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision, allowing the laws to go into effect pending further legal proceedings.
Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding: In the 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court affirmed the decision by the lower courts. The court found that Tennessee Senate Bill 1 does not discriminate against individuals seeking treatment based on sex or transgender status, but rather excludes one set of diagnoses from the range of treatable conditions.
Significance: While the Court argued that the Bill does not discriminate against transgender youth because they may still receive treatments, such as puberty blockers or hormone therapy, for other purposes, the Court has limited the constitutional right to gender-affirming care. As of now, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have allowed similar gender-affirming treatment bans to take effect in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Kentucky. The Court’s decision will possibly result in further limitations of gender-affirming care on a nationwide scale, disproportionately affecting transgender youth and their ability to ensure proper gender identity and expression.
Oral Argument Date: April 1, 2025
Facts: In 2004, U.S. citizens injured in terrorist attacks in Israel, alongside families of U.S. citizens killed in such attacks, filed a lawsuit against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act. In this suit, the plaintiffs allege that the PLO and PA encouraged terrorist attacks by paying families of Palestinians who were involved. At trial, a jury found the PLO and PA liable for six terror attacks, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated this judgment, finding that U.S. Courts lacked personal jurisdiction. Three years later, Congress enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which deemed the PLO and PA to have consented to personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts by, following the law’s enactment, making payments to terrorists who harmed U.S. nationals. While the district court found that the PLO and PA made qualifying payments, the Second Circuit later determined the consent provision to be a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Significance: The Court’s decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization will clarify the extent to which Congress can legislate personal jurisdiction over foreign entities in U.S. courts. This decision will impact the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act under the guise of due process and affect the interpretation of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, particularly in the contexts of international law and foreign relations.
Oral Argument Date: December 4, 2024
Facts: In 2023, Tennessee passed legislation restricting certain gender-affirming care treatments for minors, such as administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or sex-transition surgeries. These laws also required transgender youth receiving such care to discontinue treatments within nine months of the law’s effective date. Following their passage, transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers challenged these laws in federal court. District courts initially granted injunctions, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision, allowing the laws to go into effect pending further legal proceedings.
Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Significance: As of now, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have allowed similar gender-affirming treatment bans to take effect in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Kentucky. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti will likely result in significant implications for transgender youth and the administration of gender-affirming care on a national scale. The Court’s decision will create landmark, unifying precedent for transgender Americans, either limiting or protecting the ability of youth to receive gender-affirming medical treatment.
Oral Argument Date: April 21, 2025
Facts: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires private insurers to cover certain preventive-care services at no cost to patients. In 2020, four individuals and two Christian-based business in Texas sued the federal government, claiming that mandatory coverage of services like HPV vaccines and HIV prevention drugs (PrEP) forces them to be “complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” The plaintiffs claimed the structure of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Three agencies within the DHHS decide which services must be covered: the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). In 2020, a district court found in favor of the plaintiff in their claims against the Task Force, but rejected their claims regarding ACIP and HRSA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the first ruling but remanded the latter for reconsideration as to whether ACIP and HRSA’s recommendations were properly ratified by the DHHS.
Issue(s): Whether the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause, and whether the provisions that insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision are severable from the rest of the statute.
Significance: The Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. could substantially narrow the scope of ACA-mandated preventative care coverage, particularly for the LGBTQ+ population. This case also raises questions about the balance between religious liberty and the right to access healthcare, with the plaintiff’s claims rooted in religious objections. A decision favoring the plaintiffs would signal an expansion of religious liberty in the context of public health law, potentially reconfiguring the balance between healthcare equity and constitutional governance in the United States.
Oral Argument Date: March 24, 2025
Facts: In 2024, Governor Jeff Landry signed a new Louisiana congressional map into law, creating a majority-Black District 6, making it the second majority-Black Louisiana congressional district. The plaintiffs allege that this map constitutes an impermissible gerrymander, despite being developed in response to a previous lawsuit alleging that the Louisiana congressional map diluted minority votes. The plaintiffs in Louisiana v. Callais claim that this new map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to its prioritization of race in its creation. A three-judge panel found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that District 6 of the new map violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Issue(s): Whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Significance: Louisiana v. Callais walks a fine line between the Voting Rights Act’s mandate to prevent minority vote dilution and the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition against racial gerrymandering. The district court interpreted the precedent set in Thornburg v. Gingles to only allow new majority-Black districts to be made where the Black population is geographically compact and only if the new district adheres to traditional districting rules. Callais questions whether a map designed to correct racial gerrymandering can focus on race too much. The outcome of this case could impact how states balance the competing factors of protecting minority votes and constitutional limitations on race-based redistricting, potentially making it more difficult for Black voters to secure fair representation in Congress.
Oral Argument Date: April 22, 2025
Facts: Since 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools has included LGBTQ-inclusive books in its English Language Arts curriculum for pre-K and K-5 students. Until March 2023, the school board allowed parents to receive notice of lessons involving these books, providing the opportunity to opt their child out of lessons for religious purposes. The school board abruptly reversed this policy, prompting parents from different religious backgrounds to sue the board, arguing that the lack of notice violated their religious freedom and parental rights. These parents did not seek to ban the LGBTQ-inclusive books or challenge their adoption into the curriculum, but rather maintain control over when and how their children would be exposed to such content. The district court denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision, finding that the parents had failed to demonstrate a cognizable burden on their religious freedom.
Issue(s): Whether public schools purden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Significance: This case highlights the constitutional boundaries between religious freedom, parental rights, and public education, particularly in the light of LGBTQ-inclusive learning materials. By ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court could expand the role of religious exemptions in public education, raising questions about what other curricula children may be exempted from. By ruling in favor of Montgomery County Public Schools, the Court could initiate widespread development in the inclusion of LGBTQ+ literature in public schools, though potentially raising concerns regarding individual religious liberty and the authority of public schools nationwide.
Oral Argument Date: April 2, 2025
Facts: Since 1967, Medicaid has allowed beneficiaries “free-choice-of-provider,” requiring that states submit their medical assistance plans to the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) for approval. In July of 2018, the governor of South Carolina issued an executive order requiring the DHHS to terminate abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, from the state’s Medicaid program. Julie Edwards, a South Carolina resident and Medicaid beneficiary who received care via Planned Parenthood, sued the Director of DHHS in federal court, seeking to block enforcement of the executive order. While the district court granted a preliminary injunction, after multiple appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision that Medicaid beneficiaries can sue to enforce their right to choose their provider.
Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
Significance: The Court’s ruling in this case could either retain or limit the ability of Medicare recipients to choose their provider. By ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court would allow Medicare beneficiaries to retain healthcare access from providers that provide abortions alongside other medical care. An opposite ruling could incite broader limitations to Medicaid-approved healthcare providers on a state-by-state basis, potentially limiting healthcare access on the grounds of reproductive ideologies.
Oral Argument: May 15, 2025
Facts: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” wherein he declared that certain individuals born in the United States would not be granted citizenship if their parents were in the country illegally or temporarily. The Order required federal agencies to cease granting citizenship documents to these individuals after February 19, 2025, and further mandated that agencies revise their policies to incorporate these rules. In response to this Executive Order, lawsuits were filed in multiple federal district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. The plaintiffs argued that this Order violated the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing a deviance from longstanding constitutional and statutory understandings of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. All three district courts granted injunctions blocking nationwide implementation of the Executive Order, with the federal government appealing shortly after, arguing that these lawsuits should only apply to the specific plaintiffs and requesting that they continue internal planning for implementation. Appeals courts denied requests to limit the injunctions.
Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s January 20th executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.
Significance: The decision in Trump v. CASA Inc. will either challenge federal immigration policies that disproportionately harm marginalized immigrant communities or deviate from longstanding constitutional interpretation on birthright citizenship. This case highlights the tension between executive power and advocacy efforts to protect birthright citizenship in the United States, and will demonstrate broader implications for how immigrant justice and equal treatment are upheld.
Facts: Kelsey Chiles, a licensed counselor, is challenging Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL). The MCTL prohibits conseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their “sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions,” though allowing conversations that provide “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ... identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition.” Chiles’ request for a preliminary injunction was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, finding that the MCTL does not pose a First Amendment violation. The Tenth Circuit affirmed this decision, ruling that MCTL serves a legitimate state interest in protecting minors from harmful therapeutic practices and that it does not target speech based on its content, but instead regulates the practice of conversion therapy.
Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Significance: The Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar could either protect minors from legal conversion therapy or open the door for harmful therapeutic practices to be conducted nationwide. Conversion therapy practices have been condemned by psychiatric associations across the United States, citing their effects on recipients, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide. This case represents a further entanglement of church and state, with the effects potentially targeting vulnerable youth.
