Decision season starts Thursday for the Supreme Court, kicking off a race against the clock to release this term’s opinions before the court’s summer break begins.
The justices are set to hand down major decisions implicating the role of religion in public life, efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and a host of environmental issues.
Here’s a look at the major cases this term:
Gender-affirming care
Case name: United States v. Skrmetti
What they’re weighing: Is Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional?
Tennessee’s S.B. 1 prohibits health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to allow a transgender minor to live consistent with their gender identity. The Biden administration and a group of transgender adolescents and doctors argue the law violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Trump administration abandoned the government’s challenge upon taking office but has urged the court to still decide the case.
What it will impact: Similar laws passed by Republican-led legislatures in roughly half the country.
Racial gerrymandering
Case name: Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais
What they’re weighing: Is Louisiana’s congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander?
This case is the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over Louisiana’s congressional map design following the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-led Legislature overrode the Democratic governor’s veto to approve a map with only one majority-Black district. A district court struck it down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. At issue now is a new design, which the Legislature drew with an additional Black-majority district to prevent the courts from taking over. A group of white voters argues the Legislature went too far in boosting Black voter power, and it is now an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment.
What it will impact: States’ latitude to draw additional minority-majority districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation.
Age-verification laws
Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
What they’re weighing: Is Texas’s age-verification law for porn websites constitutional?
Texas’s H.B. 1181, passed in 2023, requires websites to verify users that are 18 years or older if the websites’ content is more than one-third “sexual material harmful to minors.” The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is challenging the law, which it claims is materially identical to the federal Child Online Protection Act — a measure the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2002.
What it will impact: Similar laws limiting access to online pornography in nearly half the country.
Publicly-funded charter schools
Case name: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond
What they’re weighing: Can Oklahoma officials approve the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school?
In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a contract for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) contests the school’s approval. This case tests whether the school complies with the First Amendment’s religion clauses.
What it will impact: The bounds of religion in publicly funded education.
Parent opt-outs for LGBTQ material in schools
Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor
What they’re weighing: Must Montgomery County, Md., provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools?
In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Initially, parents could opt out, but the county later eliminated the option. A group of parents with religious beliefs at odds with the books’ teachings argue the lack of an opt-out option violates their religious rights under the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause.
What it will impact: When parents can opt out their children from instruction inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
ObamaCare
Case name: Becerra v. Braidwood Management
What they’re weighing: Does the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause?
The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive services without any cost for the patient. The law empowers the federal Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, to recommend which services should be covered. A group of individuals and small businesses sued after the task force recommended covering HIV-prevention medication. The plaintiffs contend the task force members are principal officers who needed Senate confirmation under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
What it will impact: The task force’s recommendations, which could all be thrown into question if the justices rule against it.
South Carolina’s bid to defund Planned Parenthood
Case name: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
What they’re weighing: Can Planned Parenthood challenge South Carolina deeming it an unqualified provider for Medicaid recipients?
Known as the free choice-of-provider provision, the Medicaid Act allows recipients to receive health services from any “qualified” provider. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed executive orders deeming abortion clinics unqualified. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient are challenging McMaster’s decision. The Supreme Court is hearing the state’s arguments that private parties have no right to sue under the provision.
What it will impact: Whether private parties can enforce the Medicaid Act’s free choice-of-provider provision.
Mexico’s suit against US gunmakers
Case name: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
What they’re weighing: Is Mexico’s lawsuit against the American firearms industry barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)?
Mexico sued a group of prominent American firearms companies over their guns turning up in cartel violence, seeking $10 billion and injunctive relief that would change the state of U.S. firearm regulation. But in 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which provides broad legal immunity to the gun industry. The Supreme Court is hearing the gun industry’s appeal after a lower court held Mexico’s lawsuit falls under an exception to the law’s immunity shield.
What it will impact: The scope of the gun industry’s liability shield.
Reverse discrimination
Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
What they’re weighing: Do members of a majority group have to clear a higher legal bar than minority groups to win an employment discrimination claim?
Marlean Ames alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. Ames unsuccessfully applied for a promotion in 2019, but the job long remained vacant until her gay boss offered the job to a gay person who didn’t apply. Then, Ames says she was given a demotion and replaced by another gay person. A lower court agreed Ames met the normal requirements to bring a federal discrimination lawsuit but ruled against her, saying she needed to additionally prove “background circumstances” since she was a member of a majority group.
What it will impact: How easily white and straight individuals can bring employer discrimination suits.
Unreasonable force standard
Case name: Barnes v. Felix, Jr.
What they’re weighing: What legal test governs 4th Amendment unreasonable force claims?
Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop for driving a rental car that had unpaid toll fees. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. asked Barnes to step out of the car, but the vehicle started moving forward, prompting Felix to shoot Barnes. Barnes’s mother sued for damages, claiming Felix used unreasonable force against her son. The justices must decide whether courts should assess everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the split seconds when the officer feared for his safety.
What it will impact: The standard for use of deadly force by police.
Catholic Charities tax exemption
Case name: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
What they’re weighing: Can Wisconsin deny its unemployment tax religious exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau?
Catholic Charities Bureau, the charitable arm of a Wisconsin diocese, is challenging the state’s refusal to grant a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. The exemption requires recipients to be “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The state and its top court held that the charity does not meet that requirement because it employs non-Catholics, provides services that could be provided by secular groups and does not proselytize.
What it will impact: The extent to which states can scrutinize a group’s professed religious purpose.
Environmental reviews
Case name: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo.
What they’re weighing: Did the Surface Transportation Board conduct a sufficient environmental review in approving an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah?
In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board approved plans for an 88-mile railroad in Utah. The parties are battling over the board’s review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the “reasonably foreseeable” environmental effects of a proposed action. Eagle County, Colo., and several environmental groups are challenging the approval, arguing the board ignored required upstream and downstream effects.
What it will impact: The scope of environmental reviews required by NEPA.
Texas DNA testing law
Case name: Gutierrez v. Saenz
What they’re weighing: Can death-row inmate Ruben Gutierrez proceed in his quest for DNA testing?
Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has sought DNA testing for more than a decade, claiming it will make him ineligible for the death penalty by showing he had no major role in a 1998 robbery and murder. Texas’s law only allows DNA testing when favorable results would prove a defendant’s innocence, which Gutierrez claims violates due process. He is appealing a ruling that he has no legal standing to move forward.
What it will impact: The use of DNA as a tool in capital cases.
Mistaken FBI raid
Case name: Martin v. United States
What they’re weighing: Can a family whose house was mistakenly raided by the FBI seek damages from the federal government?
The FBI raided an Atlanta family’s home – detonating a flash-bang grenade with guns raised – in 2017 before realizing it was the wrong house. The family sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but lower courts tossed their challenge.
What it will impact: When people injured by certain actions of federal officers can bring damages claims.
Universal Service Fund
Case name: FCC v. Consumers’ Research and SHLBC v. Consumers’ Research
What they’re weighing: Does the Universal Service Fund violate the nondelegation doctrine?
The Universal Service Fund (USF) spends $9 billion annually to subsidize telecommunications services for rural and low-income consumers. A conservative nonprofit asserts it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch. Congress allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund, which the FCC, in turn, sets based on a private company’s financial projections.
What it will impact: The court has not struck down a statute under the doctrine since 1935, but anti-regulatory interests are hoping the case will revitalize the doctrine and place more limits on federal agency power.
Suing Palestine
Case name: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization
What they’re weighing: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violate the Fifth Amendment?
Congress in 2019 passed a law easing terror victims’ ability to seek damages from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization. The Supreme Court is reviewing two lower court decisions ruling the law violates due process by forcing the groups to consent to U.S. courts’ authority.
What it will impact: Whether Americans injured in Middle East terror attacks to take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages.
California’s emission standard
Case name: Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA
What they’re weighing: Do fuel producers have standing to sue over California’s car emissions rule?
The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate car emissions. But the law allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant California — and only California — a waiver, which the state has used to impose stricter standards. The EPA granted such a waiver during the Obama administration, the first Trump administration partially withdrew it, and the Biden administration reinstated it in 2022. Fuel producers suing over the reinstatement are appealing a lower ruling that found they have no legal standing.
What it will impact: Whether the energy industry can revive its effort to axe California’s stricter emission standard.
West Texas nuclear facility
Case name: Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas
What they’re weighing: Can the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license a private entity to temporarily store nuclear waste away from the reactor where it was generated? And who can sue?
In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed Interim Storage Partners to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuels for 40 years at its West Texas facility. The commission is appealing two findings that allowed Fasken Land and Minerals and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to block the license.
What it will impact: Limits on who can challenge certain federal agency actions.
Clean Air Act
Case name: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, Oklahoma v. EPA and Pacificorp v. EPA
What they’re weighing: What is the proper venue for lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act?
These cases involve the federal government’s bid to move to Washington, D.C., a series of lawsuits brought by Republican-led states and the energy industry challenging EPA actions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is attempting to transfer the first case out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit, while the plaintiffs appealed in the other cases after the 10th Circuit agreed to move them to D.C.
What it will impact: When more conservative-leaning courts can get involved in key environmental cases.
Vape product challenges
Case name: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
What they’re weighing: Where can vape manufacturers sue when the FDA denies a product’s marketing authorization?
Federal law requires vape manufacturers to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before marketing their products. “Any person adversely affected” by a denial can sue in Washington, D.C., or the federal circuit court where they reside. In this case, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. attempted to bring a challenge in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit by adding as plaintiffs a retail store and a trade association based there. The federal government wants the Supreme Court to shut down the tactic.
What it will impact: Whether vape companies can forum shop to challenge FDA denials.
Ghost guns
The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the Biden administration’s rule.
Case name: Bondi v. VanDerStok
What they’re weighing: Is the Biden administration’s crackdown on “ghost guns” legal?
In 2022, the Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule cracking down on “ghost guns,” subjecting them to background checks, licensing and other requirements. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether that the Biden administration could do so by deeming ghost guns as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case does not implicate the Second Amendment.
What it will impact: The executive branch’s ability to regulate ghost guns without congressional approval.
