Birthright citizenship, porn ID laws, LGBTQ books in schools: A guide to the Supreme Court's biggest decisions as it closes out its term
The Supreme Court issued a flurry of consequential decisions on Friday as it wrapped up its unfinished business before adjourning for summer break.
Five separate rulings were released on Friday morning, including three highly anticipated opinions on LGBTQ lessons in public schools, age verification for porn sites and birthright citizenship. Those rulings came a day after the high court found that states have the power to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides.
The high court also issued opinions in other, bigger blockbuster cases earlier this term: it upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multi-billion dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers.
Advertisement
Let's take a look at some of the most important cases that SCOTUS decided this term, what those rulings mean, and what questions the justices have left unanswered.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Decided: June 26, 2025
Case argued: April 2, 2025
The ruling: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help low-income people cover medical costs. Public health funds generally can't be used for abortions, but this case centered around whether South Carolina or other states could block that money from being used for any of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides — things like contraception, cancer screenings and other reproductive health procedures.
Advertisement
In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the justices found that states can indeed block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds entirely. Planned Parenthood and other health organizations had argued that cutting off these funds would harm poor South Carolina residents who may struggle to find other providers that accept Medicaid, but Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that any fallout from the funding freeze was 'a policy question for Congress, not courts.'
What the ruling means: The ruling could prove to be a major blow for Planned Parenthood, which has been a longtime target of conservatives because it provides abortions, among many other health services. Other conservative states may follow South Carolina's lead in barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funds, which could make it even more difficult for low-income Americans to access healthcare.
Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case)
Case: Trump v. CASA
Advertisement
Decided: June 27, 2025
Case argued: May 15, 2025
The ruling: Though the case centers around Trump's order to rescind birthright citizenship, the actual question before the court was about how much power courts have to stop laws or orders they believe to be illegal from going into effect.
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the high court placed new limits on when lower courts can issue what are known as universal injunctions — which judges can use to block a policy nationwide while its legality is being considered by the courts — when they are 'broader than necessary to provide complete relief.' She explicitly wrote that today's decision 'does not address' the constitutionality of Trump's attempt to eliminate the right to birthright citizenship.
Advertisement
What the ruling means: Though the highest-profile question involved here will have to be decided another day, this decision could have huge implications for future cases on any number of issues. Because of this ruling, one of the most important tools that federal courts have to stand in the way of what they deem to be illegal orders — a tool they have routinely used against both Democratic and Republican presidents — will be significantly less potent. It also sets the stage for Trump to prepare to put his plan to revoke birthright citizenship into motion, which he said he would order his administration to do 'promptly' in response to the ruling.
Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools
Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor
Decided: June 27, 2025
Advertisement
Case argued: April 22, 2025
Read more from Slate: SCOTUS rules in favor of parents seeking to opt children out of reading LGBTQ books
The ruling: The court ruled that a group of Maryland parents have the right to opt their children out of lessons at their public elementary schools with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks that they feel violate their religious beliefs.
The parents had argued that the lessons, which were a mandatory part of the school curriculum, 'unconstitutionally burden' their rights to religious freedom. Though Friday's ruling did not provide a final judgment on that claim, the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito found that the parents are likely to win when that case is decided in the future and would suffer 'irreparable harm' if their children were forced to attend the lessons in the interim.
Advertisement
What the ruling means: Though there is still more to come in this case, this decision on its own marks a significant step toward granting parents more power over what is taught in public schools and could set the stage for religious viewpoints — particularly Christian viewpoints — having a stronger influence over secular education. Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the decision creates a 'parental veto power' in schools that 'threatens the very essence of public education.'
Age verification for porn sites
Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Decided: June 27, 2025
Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025
Advertisement
Read more: Supreme Court upholds Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online
The ruling: The justices upheld a 2023 Texas law that requires users of porn websites to verify their age before accessing explicit material. Free speech organizations and the porn industry had challenged the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected that argument on the grounds that 'requiring proof of age is an ordinary and appropriate means' of preventing minors from accessing obscene content.
What the ruling means: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well.
Transgender care for minors
Case: United States v. Skrmetti
Advertisement
Decided: June 18, 2025
Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025
Read more: US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law banning youth transgender care
The ruling: In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the justices ruled that a Tennessee law banning gender affirming care for minors does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
Groups of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers had challenged the law, making the case that it discriminates against transgender children on the basis of sex since many common treatments for gender dysphoria (including puberty blockers and hormone therapy) are readily available to non-transgender kids. The justices rejected that argument, ruling that the law only dictates who can receive treatments based on specific diagnoses and age, which are not protected classes in the eyes of the law.
Advertisement
What the ruling means: There are currently 27 states that have enacted similar laws to restrict gender-transition care, though some of those bans are tied up in legal challenges. Wednesday's ruling means those laws will likely survive those legal challenges. The decision does not have any impact on states that don't have laws banning gender-affirming care.
Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps
Case: Louisiana v. Callais
Case originally argued: March 24, 2025 (more arguments set for next term)
Read more: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map
The issue: In a surprise move, the court did not release an opinion on its last outstanding case of the term. Instead, it ordered that more arguments be held during its next term, which starts in the fall.
The case concerns a congressional redistricting map in Louisiana that has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 Census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color.
A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district.
But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment.
What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The final ruling may ultimately shift the criteria that are used to draw up congressional districts, which play a major role in determining the balance of power in Congress.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Republicans dial back endowment tax plans again
Senate Republicans have included compromises on key Medicaid and tax issues in updated text for their sweeping domestic policy bill. In an effort to placate GOP moderates on the fence on the legislation, Senate Republicans are planning to provide a $25 billion stabilization fund for rural hospitals over five years. It's a significant bump up from the $15 billion offer Senate Republican leadership had made to a group of Medicaid moderates, who have balked at the steep cuts to the health program contained in the marque legislation. Senate Republicans would also delay planned cuts to provider taxes that fund state obligations to Medicaid. The changes would still incrementally lower the allowable provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6 percent down to 3.5 percent. But the drawdown would begin in 2028, one year later than planned — in a nod to concerns from senators like Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who warned this week that resulting cuts to Medicaid could have disastrous electoral consequences in the midterms. The changes come as Senate Republicans are racing ahead with plans to hold a vote on their legislation Saturday. President Donald Trump still wants the bill on his desk by July 4, though Republicans, as of Friday evening, did not have the votes to start debate . The language also reflects changes to the state and local tax deduction sought by blue state House Republicans. The New York, New Jersey and California Republicans have been in prolonged negotiations with Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over a boost to the deduction, which Senate Republicans universally want lowered. The new Senate text keeps House Republicans' plan to increase the deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, but it would snap back to current levels after 2029. The new language likely shaves off at least $100 billion from the approximately $350 billion price tag of the House plan. It's still unclear, though, if the compromise would get all of the hardcore SALT Republicans to 'yes.' In a Friday lunch with Senate Republicans, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he still had one holdout on the SALT deal -— a likely reference to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who indicated on Friday that, if there had been a deal, he was not part of it. The text for the Finance committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy and Medicaid, could still see major changes. That's because the language still hasn't been fully updated to reflect rulings from the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, on whether the contained provisions comply with strict budget rules. The tax panel had their final meetings with MacDonough Friday night, but it's unclear how she would weigh in, if at all, on tax provisions enacted under a novel accounting tactic called 'current policy baseline. That tactic takes the unprecedented step of zeroing out trillions of tax cut extensions. Senate Republicans are relying on it to make a slew of provisions, from individual to business tax cuts, permanent. David Lim contributed to this report.
Politico
34 minutes ago
- Politico
Updated megabill includes key compromises on taxes, Medicaid
Senate Republicans have included compromises on key Medicaid and tax issues in updated text for their sweeping domestic policy bill. In an effort to placate GOP moderates on the fence on the legislation, Senate Republicans are planning to provide a $25 billion stabilization fund for rural hospitals over five years. It's a significant bump up from the $15 billion offer Senate Republican leadership had made to a group of Medicaid moderates, who have balked at the steep cuts to the health program contained in the marque legislation. Senate Republicans would also delay planned cuts to provider taxes that fund state obligations to Medicaid. The changes would still incrementally lower the allowable provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6 percent down to 3.5 percent. But the drawdown would begin in 2028, one year later than planned — in a nod to concerns from senators like Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who warned this week that resulting cuts to Medicaid could have disastrous electoral consequences in the midterms. The changes come as Senate Republicans are racing ahead with plans to hold a vote on their legislation Saturday. President Donald Trump still wants the bill on his desk by July 4, though Republicans, as of Friday evening, did not have the votes to start debate . The language also reflects changes to the state and local tax deduction sought by blue state House Republicans. The New York, New Jersey and California Republicans have been in prolonged negotiations with Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over a boost to the deduction, which Senate Republicans universally want lowered. The new Senate text keeps House Republicans' plan to increase the deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, but it would snap back to current levels after 2029. The new language likely shaves off at least $100 billion from the approximately $350 billion price tag of the House plan. It's still unclear, though, if the compromise would get all of the hardcore SALT Republicans to 'yes.' In a Friday lunch with Senate Republicans, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he still had one holdout on the SALT deal -— a likely reference to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who indicated on Friday that, if there had been a deal, he was not part of it. The text for the Finance committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy and Medicaid, could still see major changes. That's because the language still hasn't been fully updated to reflect rulings from the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, on whether the contained provisions comply with strict budget rules. The tax panel had their final meetings with MacDonough Friday night, but it's unclear how she would weigh in, if at all, on tax provisions enacted under a novel accounting tactic called 'current policy baseline. That tactic takes the unprecedented step of zeroing out trillions of tax cut extensions. Senate Republicans are relying on it to make a slew of provisions, from individual to business tax cuts, permanent.
Politico
39 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Republicans make steep cuts to wind and solar in updated megabill text
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain abrupt cuts to tax incentives supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny wind and solar leasing arrangements to residential customers from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029.
