The Supreme Court is entering the final weeks of its current term, preparing to issue a series of opinions with potential wide-ranging consequences for the federal government, religious organizations, and millions of Americans. The term, which began in October, initially featured high-profile appeals concerning transgender rights and the social media platform TikTok but has increasingly focused on the policies and politics of President Donald Trump.
With more than half of the argued cases from this term still pending, the justices are now working towards a late June deadline to release a flurry of decisions. This period will see resolutions on cases that could significantly impact the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches, the rights of transgender individuals and religious groups, and the scope of federal agency authority.
The court’s 6-3 conservative majority has seen its end-of-term workload complicated by over a dozen emergency appeals linked to President Trump’s second term. These cases involve issues such as mass firings, immigration policies, and the president’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship. These emergency appeals are expected to continue even after the court adjourns for its summer recess.
Here are some of the key outstanding appeals:
Birthright Citizenship: An appeal concerning President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship has quickly become a central case for the court. The Justice Department argues that lower courts exceeded their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order, which sought to limit birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decision on the power of courts to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential executive orders could have implications extending beyond the issue of birthright citizenship, particularly given President Trump’s repeated criticisms of such injunctions halting his policies. The case also raises fundamental questions about presidential authority and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to people born in the United States. Arguments presented on May 15 suggested apprehension among both conservative and liberal justices about allowing the policy to take effect.
Transgender Care for Minors: The case US v. Skrmetti involves a Tennessee law that restricts or bans gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy. While the Supreme Court case does not address surgical interventions, the litigation comes at a time when both the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers are actively seeking to roll back legal and political advancements made by transgender Americans in recent years. During oral arguments in December, a majority of the court appeared inclined to side with the state, agreeing with Republican lawmakers who argue that decisions about such medical care should be made after individuals reach adulthood and that states have broad authority to regulate medical treatments within their jurisdictions.
LGBTQ+ Books in Schools: The court will also rule on a case concerning a school district in suburban Washington that declined to allow parents to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ+ themed books in the classroom. The parents argued that the school’s curriculum violated their religious beliefs. This case reaches the Supreme Court amid ongoing tensions between parents and school districts regarding the extent of parental influence over public school instruction. Arguments in late April indicated a potential inclination by the court’s conservative majority to side with the parents, aligning with the court’s recent trend of expanding religious rights.
Preventive Health Care and Government Power: Several cases before the court challenge the authority of federal agencies. One significant case concerns the task force responsible for recommending preventive health care services that must be covered without cost under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the case involves technical questions about the appointment process of the board members making these recommendations, the decision could affect access to cost-free services such as cancer screenings, statins, and HIV prevention drugs under the ACA. Arguments in late April suggested the court might uphold the task force’s structure. Additionally, the court seemed skeptical of a challenge to the Universal Service Fund, a program created by Congress in 1996 to support broadband and phone service expansion in rural and low-income areas. A conservative group argued that the fund represented an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s taxing power. The court’s decision on this matter could signal a departure from its recent tendency to limit agency power without explicit congressional approval.
The Supreme Court has also seen an increase in emergency appeals related to the Trump administration’s policies since January. While President Trump has frequently criticized the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court has granted him more emergency requests than it has denied in recent weeks. The court has allowed the administration to temporarily bar transgender Americans from military service, end temporary deportation protections for Venezuelans, and remove board members from independent agencies Congress sought to insulate from White House control. However, the court did block the administration’s attempt to quickly deport migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act without additional notice. Given the number of pending lawsuits in lower federal courts, the stream of emergency cases before the Supreme Court is likely to continue beyond the traditional end of the term.
Discussion about this post