SCOTUS Still Has To Decide These Six Major Cases

The Supreme Court still has six major opinions to release, including cases on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship ban and religious opt-outs for mandatory LGBTQ storybook readings.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced in the courtroom that Friday would be the final opinion day of the term, according to the Associated Press.

The Court released four opinions on Thursday, including a 6-3 decision allowing South Carolina’s effort to defund Planned Parenthood to move forward.

Below are the remaining cases on the court’s docket.

Birthright Citizenship Executive Order  

The Trump administration appealed three lower court rulings preventing the executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens or migrants on temporary visas from taking effect. Rather than rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the administration asked the justices in Trump v. CASA to consider limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions that block policies across the entire country.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments during an unusual May session, where Solicitor General John Saur highlighted the dozens of injunctions lower court judges have issued blocking executive policies since January. If the court chooses to limit nationwide injunctions, it could have significant implications for other pending lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Affordable Care Act Preventive Services

Two Christian small businesses and four individuals in Texas sued in 2020 to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) preventative services requirement, citing religious objections to covering drugs that prevent the spread of HIV.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in their case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, in April. The central question is whether the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a group established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to make recommendations for preventive services insurers will cover, violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Louisiana’s Congressional Map

Following a winding journey through the lower courts, the Supreme Court is slated to resolve a conflict over Louisiana’s congressional map.

After a federal district judge rejected Louisiana’s congressional map including only one black-majority district as a violation of the Voting Rights Act in 2022, the state legislature redrew the map with a second black-majority district in 2024. However, a three-judge panel ruled its new map unlawfully made race the “predominant factor” in its creation.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais in March.

LGBTQ Storybook Opt-Outs

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Muslim and Christian parents in Maryland challenged the Montgomery County Board of Education’s refusal to grant a religious exemption to mandated elementary school storybook readings involving pride parades, gender transitions and drag queens.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 ruled against the parents, finding their free exercise rights were not burdened because nobody compelled them to “change their religious beliefs or conduct.” During oral arguments in April, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the parents.

Porn Age Verification Laws

In January, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to Texas’ law requiring pornography websites to verify users’ ages. Currently, 24 states have passed similar age verification laws.

The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, was brought by an advocacy group representing online pornography distributors, which argues the law burdens adults’ First Amendment rights.

Federal Internet Access Program

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research involves a challenge to the Universal Service Fund, a federal program that supports phone and internet access for schools, libraries and rural healthcare providers. Universal Service Administrative Company, a private company, administers the program, which is funded primarily through required contributions from telecommunications carriers.

Consumers’ Research, a conservative nonprofit that offers “woke alerts” highlighting corporate actions, argues the fund’s structure violates the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in March.