Guest post by Jamaal Lockings
President Trump, and his flurry of executive orders, have dominated the news coverage. Amid conversations about the constitutionality of these orders, the role of the federal judiciary becomes blatantly apparent as potentially the only check on this executive branch. However, determining the limits of authority for a president who is determined to test them is not the only role of the courts, especially that of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court will have a final say in many of these legal battles related to Trump, but they also get the final say in many cases that have the potential to alter the legal landscape of our country for generations to come. In doing so, they are redefining our rights, determining our access to health care, a safe and clean environment, and much more. We’ve rounded up nine cases the Supreme Court is considering this term that we believe you should be paying attention to.
Expanding Christian Nationalism
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been consistently entrenching Christian nationalism under the guise of “religious liberty” under the First Amendment, often at the expense of other rights. Since 2020, the Court has increasingly taken on such cases. They have set a higher bar for denying religious accommodations to employees (Groff v. DeJoy), sided with a Colorado web designer refusing to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds (303 Creative v. Elenis), and ruled that states cannot exclude private religious schools from taxpayer funding (Carson v. Makin). Now, the Court has two more cases on its docket that could further expand the privilege of Christian conservatives at the expense of all others.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
Background: In Wisconsin, employers are taxed to fund unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs. This tax does not apply to churches. Catholic Charities has paid these taxes since 1972. However, they are suing to try and change that, arguing that they should get the same exemption as a church because they are affiliated with a religious organization.
Consequences: If the Court rules in favor of Catholic Charities it would create a whole new tax exemption for “church charities” simply because a charity is affiliated with a religious organization. That could give an undue financial benefit to charities that are religiously affiliated, blur the separation between church and state, and limit governments from collecting taxes for legitimate needs. A charity is not a church, and the Supreme Court should not treat it as one.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond
Background: In Oklahoma, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School was approved by the school board to operate as a public charter school. However, Oklahoma’s attorney general challenged this, arguing that funding a religious school violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the state’s constitution, which prohibits using public funds for religious institutions.
Consequences: A Supreme Court ruling favoring the charter school would set a historic precedent as the first state-sponsored religious charter school in the United States. Such a decision could encourage other conservative states to create similar schools and obliterate the separation of church and state. A ruling allowing religious schools to receive public funding would steer public education funding away from public schools, potentially crippling public education and the kids who need it most.
Environmental Regulations Enforcement
Last term, the Supreme Court stripped administrative agencies of key interpretative authority, limiting their regulatory power and enforcement abilities. Among these agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently faced challenges from the conservative majority. The court has restricted the EPA’s ability to safeguard water bodies (Sackett, 2023), blocked the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (West Virginia, 2021), and prevented the regulation of smog-forming pollution. This term, the court could do even more to undermine the laws and federal agencies tasked with maintaining our clean air and clean water.
Seven County Infrastructure v. Eagle County, Colo.
Background: The Surface Transportation Board, an independent federal agency, approved the construction of an 88-mile railway in Utah’s Uinta Basin. The railway, designed to transport waxy crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast, has raised concerns among environmental groups. They warn that the railway could negatively affect communities near the refineries and exacerbate ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin as oil production increases.
Consequences: If the Supreme Court sides with the transportation board it could significantly increase the environmental consequences of government actions. A bad decision could allow agencies’ future infrastructure projects to overlook indirect environmental impacts like climate change, with lasting implications for environmental assessments that threaten our right to a clean environment.
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency
Background: The EPA is tasked with reviewing and approving State Implementation Plans (SIPs) submitted by states to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), which sets nationwide air quality standards. Since 1970, cases regarding these SIPs have been heard in the D.C. Circuit Court. However, petitioners in this case want to challenge the denial of their SIPs in regional courts, despite the long-established rule.
Consequences: The Court’s decision could significantly impact how the EPA handles national environmental issues, like safeguarding our air quality. A ruling allowing such lawsuits in regional courts could place additional strain on the EPA’s resources, creating inconsistencies in environmental law enforcement. A ruling favoring the petitioners could lead to an explosion in litigation that would always require Supreme Court resolution. Since different circuit courts could reach different decisions, the Supreme Court would have the final say for these kinds of disputes in the future, granting the conservative majority even more power over the EPA’s ability to fight climate change.
Healthcare Access
Since the Court overturned Roe v. Wade (Dobbs, 2022), health care access has become a central topic in national discourse as women across the country have lost access to life-saving reproductive health care. Since then, the court has gone even further in redefining our health care rights. This term, the Supreme Court will hear more cases about access to contraceptives, health care coverage, and more.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Background: South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster cut state funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, directing the state’s health department to prevent them from participating in Medicaid. Julie Edwards, a Medicaid recipient in South Carolina, has sued the state after she was unable to get her birth control at Planned Parenthood due to the governor’s order.
Consequences: A ruling in favor of the state would not only limit reproductive health care but threaten broader access to medical services. It would create another avenue for conservative states across the country to create more reproductive health care deserts. If clinics offering reproductive health care are stripped of their Medicaid funding, many would be forced to close, leaving countless individuals without access to services they need and deserve.
Becerra v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
Background: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private insurance plans to fully cover recommended preventive services, which include contraceptives and HIV prevention treatments. These covered services are determined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an expert panel authorized to establish qualifying preventative care. A group of Christian-owned businesses and individuals in Texas has challenged this mandate, arguing that requiring coverage for these services violates their religious freedoms and that the organization itself is unconstitutional.
Consequences: The ACA’s provision requiring insurance companies to fully cover preventive services is one of its most popular features, benefiting over 150 million Americans and improving health outcomes, especially for marginalized communities. A ruling against this mandate would devastate Americans across the county, reverse progress, and create barriers to preventive care. This access to essential health services is vital to the well-being of tens of millions of Americans and many people can’t afford to lose it.
Disability Rights
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was created to prevent discrimination in areas like employment, education, and public services. While the law is not perfect, it has improved the lives of tens of millions of people. Key Supreme Court cases impacting people with disabilities often go unnoticed. This term, the Court could make significant changes in education for students with disabilities.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District
Background: A.J.T., a student with severe epilepsy, sued the Osseo Area Schools district for disability discrimination after her request for evening instruction was denied. Due to her condition, A.J.T. could not attend school until noon, and her parents requested evening classes to allow her a comparable school day to her peers. When the district refused, A.J.T. filed a lawsuit under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, alleging discrimination.
Consequences: This case is crucial for children with disabilities and their families. Both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act are vital in addressing educational discrimination, which can significantly impact children’s futures. A ruling in favor of A.J.T. would help ensure that students with disabilities receive equal access to quality education and can hold their educational institutions accountable.
LGBTQ+ Inclusivity
Recently, efforts to restrict what is taught in schools have focused on limiting the inclusion of diverse characters and perspectives in reading materials. These restrictions have led to widespread book bans, with a third of banned books in recent years featuring LGBTQ+ themes or characters. This issue has now reached a conservative Supreme Court that has been openly hostile to the rights and voices of the LGBTQ+ community.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Background: A group of parents in Maryland are challenging the use of LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks and lessons on gender and sexuality in public schools. The parents argue that the use of these materials, without prior notice or the opportunity to opt out, infringes upon their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Consequences: A ruling favoring the parents could censor LGBTQ+ inclusive education in public schools and establish a precedent for religious exemptions in curriculum decisions about gender and sexuality. This outcome would severely hinder efforts to create inclusive educational environments, negatively impacting the mental and emotional well-being of LGBTQ+ students and restricting the broader community’s understanding of diversity and identity.
Liability for Gun Violence
While the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Second Amendment rights has dominated media coverage amid America’s gun violence epidemic, this term brings a different type of
firearms case. Rather than addressing constitutional rights, the Court will consider Mexico’s lawsuit seeking to hold gun manufacturers and distributors liable.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Background: The Mexican government has sued several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, accusing them of fueling illegal gun trafficking that contributes to violence by drug cartels in Mexico. The gun manufacturers argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects them from liability for the misuse of their legal products.
Consequences: A ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed could open the door to holding gun manufacturers and distributors accountable for gun violence crimes, potentially increasing their liability for the criminal misuse of firearms. However, a ruling in favor of the manufacturers could set a precedent that limits their accountability even further, potentially making it more difficult for individuals, organizations, and governments to seek justice for harms related to gun violence.
The Supreme Court is hearing cases that will have a major impact on our laws and communities, with the conservative majority already pushing for significant changes. These are changes they actively seek and rules they want to alter. It only takes four out of the nine justices to agree and place a case on their docket, which makes the consequences of their decisions even more concerning. While we can’t predict the outcome of any case, this conservative supermajority has shown a strong, consistent right-wing bias — more than any Supreme Court in history.
As we approach another critical term for the rule of law, it’s clear that The Supreme Court of the United States needs a binding code of ethics, and we must recognize how deeply the people serving on the Court — and their perspectives — matter. Given the pressure on our constitutional democracy and the weakening of our checks and balances, we must stay vigilant. The Court’s decisions shape the future, and we cannot afford to ignore their lasting effects on generations to come.
Guest post by Jamaal Lockings at Alliance for Justice.