What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.
The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June.
Here are some of the biggest remaining cases:
Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth
The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population.
At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports.
Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military.
Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts
The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.
The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years.
These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally.
Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.
The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools
Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity.
The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools.
The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.'
The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.
A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court
Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024.
A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on.
Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law.
The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography
Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous.
The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Owes the Country Explanations, Not Just Rulings
Federal judges are not elected by the public. Nor are they supposed to make decisions based on their ideological preferences. Our political system instead vests them with the power to decide whether the president, Congress and other lawmakers are enacting policies that are consistent with previous laws, court rulings and, above all, the Constitution. For these reasons, the credibility of judges depends on their ability to offer public explanation for the legal basis of their decisions. When judges show their work, the public can assess it by the standards the judiciary sets for itself — reasoning grounded in law and judicial precedent. Without that, judges risk their legitimacy. Clear explanation is especially important for the Supreme Court, which sets national rules that lower courts must follow. When the court fails to make these rules clear, confusion can set in. The current Supreme Court is creating precisely this problem by issuing many important rulings as brief, unsigned orders on its so-called emergency docket. On this docket (also known as the shadow docket), the votes among the nine justices are not public, and the majorities typically offer little explanation for their decisions. Yet the justices have used the emergency docket this year to hand down a series of rulings allowing President Trump to expand executive power and alter the structure of government. In following this path, the justices are ducking one of their crucial responsibilities: making persuasive arguments with which we can all engage. This overuse of the emergency docket is a self-inflicted wound. It diminishes public confidence in government when that confidence is already low. We recognize that the emergency docket is a necessary part of Supreme Court business. It allows the court to address urgent questions that cannot wait months or years to be adjudicated to the end in the lower courts and then fully briefed and argued at the Supreme Court. For most of American history, a single justice ruled on emergency matters, sometimes after a hearing, with each of the nine justices having authority over a different region. After the court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976, all nine heard last-minute applications to delay executions. The practice of the full court hearing emergency cases became routine in the early 1980s, according to Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor who tracks the court in a weekly newsletter. Still, the death penalty was long the emergency docket's primary purpose. The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, combined, asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief only eight times in 16 years. Mr. Trump's administration has been much more aggressive about seeking emergency relief for a worrisome reason: He has enacted many legally dubious policies that lower-court judges have blocked, on a strikingly bipartisan basis. His lawyers have then selectively rushed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn certain rulings and allow the policies to go into effect. In his first term, his administration applied for emergency relief 41 times. In his second term, the pace has been even faster. The Trump administration has applied 21 times since January. The math is jarring. Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama averaged one emergency request every two years; Mr. Trump averages nearly one a week. The justices have been very friendly to these applications. After rejecting the Trump administration's first three filings this spring, the court has granted the last 18. Some of its decisions are legally defensible. Others may turn out to be temporary, with the justices ultimately judging Mr. Trump's policy to be illegal after they fully consider it. Yet the overuse of the emergency docket nonetheless has worrisome consequences. We see at least three specific ways in which the court's new fondness for speed and silence is damaging the American legal system. The first problem is the lack of explanation, which leaves the public unable to assess the justices' reasoning and lower courts and policymakers uncertain about the full meaning of the rulings. Take the decision this month allowing the Trump administration to fire many Department of Education employees. After taking office, Mr. Trump said he would like to close the agency immediately and signed an order with a section called 'Closing the Department of Education and Returning Authority to the States.' In response to lawsuits brought by states, school districts and unions, a district court blocked the order, finding that it 'effectively dismantled' the department. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, making multiple arguments. John Sauer, Mr. Trump's solicitor general, conceded in his petition that the executive branch could not unilaterally abolish the department, which Congress created in 1979. But Mr. Sauer defended the order by saying that it directed closure to the 'maximum extent' permitted by law. He also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing (meaning they did not have a legal basis to challenge the order) and that the lower court lacked jurisdiction (meaning it was not the right forum for the case). The court sided with the Trump administration, offering no explanation. It did not say whether it agreed with Mr. Sauer's argument on the merits or his arguments about standing or jurisdiction. It did not illuminate what it would mean to close a cabinet agency to the maximum extent permissible without actually closing it. As a result, lower courts cannot know how to apply the ruling in other cases. Which firings and cuts are legal, and which are illegal? Should other plaintiffs file a new lawsuit? The court gave no clue. Uncertainties also loom over its emergency rulings on cases dealing with immigration, transgender troops and access to Social Security records. A second problem is the perception of Supreme Court partisanship, which the emergency docket exacerbates. Since 2021, the approval rating for the court has fallen, and people's attitudes toward it have become more polarized, with many more Republicans than Democrats or independents expressing faith in it. As the court's Republican-appointed majority rules again and again in Mr. Trump's favor in emergency matters, the paucity of explanation contributes to a perception that the justices have a thumb on the scale for a Republican president. It is also striking that the court seemed less willing to grant emergency relief to President Joe Biden than to Mr. Trump. In 2022, for example, the Biden administration petitioned the justices after a district court blocked the Education Department from carrying out Mr. Biden's student-debt forgiveness program. The justices declined to act, leaving his plan paused for half a year while they considered the case on its normal, slower docket. The justices also declined to take up his administration's broader complaints about universal injunctions — orders from a single lower-court judge blocking a policy nationwide, as happened with the debt-relief program. After Mr. Trump took office, by contrast, the justices issued a ruling restricting those universal injunctions. Why was Trump's Education Department policy an emergency that required immediate relief but Biden's policy was not? Why did the court allow universal injunctions to block Mr. Biden's policies, only to restrict them after they blocked Mr. Trump's actions? Once more, the justices might have had reasons for making these distinctions but have not offered them. By failing to do so, the justices breed doubt. Another recent emergency case highlighted this partisanship problem in a subtler way. In May the court expanded the president's authority to remove officials at independent agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board. This time, the court gave a truncated explanation, saying the president's constitutional powers include the authority to fire agency heads without cause. But the court made a strange exception. It said the president still must have cause to fire a member of the board of the Federal Reserve. In defense, the court offered one vague sentence: 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.' The lack of meaningful argument arouses suspicion that the distinction has little legal basis and instead reflects the fact that many Republicans favor a well-functioning Fed while being suspicious of other regulatory agencies. Because of the court's ruling, the president can now dismiss many agency leaders at will; on Wednesday the conservative majority issued yet another emergency order that allows Mr. Trump to fire the Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These rulings are a sharp break from a previous Supreme Court decision that stood for 90 years, and they end the independence that some agencies had since Congress created them during the New Deal. The court is using the emergency docket to create a more powerful presidency. The third problem is that the Supreme Court is using this docket to make itself more powerful, too, deciding many of the country's most pressing political questions in real time. This is a power grab, in which the justices reduce the role of lower courts, where judges are more evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees than the justices are. Last month Justice Brett Kavanaugh invited yet more applications for emergency relief. He wrote that the Supreme Court, not the lower courts, should decide whether a major law or executive action takes effect in the months or years before a final judgment. There are benefits to national uniformity, which Mr. Kavanaugh said is his goal. But the six Republican appointees on the nine-member court sometimes seem to favor a version of uniformity that reflects their personal policy preferences. Since Mr. Trump first took office in 2017, the Supreme Court has restrained him in important ways. It blocked major policies in his first term, such as his attempt to add a citizenship question to the census. It showed no patience for his ludicrous claims of election fraud in 2020. This year it issued an emergency order prohibiting the transfer of additional prisoners to a brutal Salvadoran prison. Anybody who dismisses the court as a mere extension of Mr. Trump is being unfair. Nonetheless, the court has been too deferential to him. It sometimes seemed willfully blind to the ways in which he is different from every other modern president, of either party, in arrogating power and breaking with longstanding legal and ethical constraints on using it. Last summer the justices gave him and future presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for most of their acts in office, a free pass that set aside the principle that no one is above the law. By using the emergency docket to side with him so often, the court is changing its own job and the presidency before our eyes when the country needs the Supreme Court to be a force of stability. A better approach would be for the court to adhere to stricter standards for deciding which cases are true emergencies. Even in these cases, the justices should hold arguments when possible and always publicly release their votes. They should take the time to explain themselves clearly enough to guide the lower courts, give the rest of us a rationale and distinguish judicial power from political power. Most of all, the court should think about how its work can bolster the separation of powers to assure the future of American democracy. That is its ultimate responsibility. Source photograph by artisteer, via Getty Images. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@ Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
