The Supreme Court is in the final phase of a term marked heavily by the Trump administration’s emergency appeal efforts, challenging lower court decisions that aim to slow down President Donald Trump’s extensive initiatives to reshape the federal landscape.
As the court heads into this crucial period, it has 21 unresolved cases that were debated from December through mid-May. Among these is a significant case pushed by Republican-led states to prohibit gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
Another case of interest stems from an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, which seeks to allow enforcement of an executive order barring birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented parents.
The Supreme Court usually strives to conclude its work by the final days of June.
One of the most anticipated cases concerns Tennessee’s law, which prohibits certain medical treatments for transgender youth, a challenge brought forth by affected minors and their parents. They argue that the law is a form of unconstitutional sex discrimination against a particularly vulnerable group in society.
During the December hearings, the conservative majority of the Court appeared to lean toward upholding the state law, expressing doubt about claims that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
This case is part of a broader wave of federal and state actions regulating various aspects of the lives of transgender individuals, including their participation in sports and access to bathrooms.
In April, President Trump’s administration launched a lawsuit against Maine for not abiding by directives aimed at excluding transgender athletes from girls’ sports.
Moreover, Trump has initiated efforts to curtail federal funding for gender-affirming care for individuals under 19 and had previously achieved consent from a conservative majority of justices to pursue measures aimed at removing transgender individuals from military service.
The birthright citizenship directive by Trump has encountered significant roadblocks in lower courts.
Typically, the Supreme Court does not hear emergencies, but in this instance, it accepted the administration’s appeal to narrow judicial orders that have halted the proposed changes to citizenship nationwide.
The core issue at hand is whether the court should limit the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions—a practice that has often hampered both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past decade.
These sweeping court orders have served as crucial checks on President Trump’s efforts, causing frustration among the Republican leadership.
After last month’s arguments, the court seemed largely inclined to maintain restrictions on the citizenship limitations while also seeking a way to reduce the scope of nationwide court orders.
However, the justices expressed concerns about the implications of allowing the administration to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented parents, even on a temporary basis.
Opponents of Trump’s executive directive, including Democratic-led states, immigrant groups, and rights organizations, contend that it would fundamentally alter the long-established doctrine of birthright citizenship upheld for more than 125 years.
In a notable religious rights case, it is expected that the court will favor parents from Maryland who seek to exempt their children from classes utilizing LGBTQ-themed storybooks in the school curriculum.
Parents in the Montgomery County school system argue that they should have the ability to withdraw their children from lessons that incorporate these storybooks, which were intended to represent the diversity of the district better.
Although the school district permitted parents to opt their children out of these lessons at one point, it later rescinded the policy due to concerns about potential disruptions.
Notably, sex education classes remain the sole section within the county’s educational offerings that includes an opt-out option.
The district introduced these particular storybooks in 2022, with titles such as ‘Prince and Knight’ and ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.’
This case is just one among various religious rights issues currently before the court.
In more political and electoral matters, the Supreme Court is revisiting a contentious dispute over congressional districting in Louisiana.
This ongoing litigation has seen lower courts invalidate two prior congressional maps since 2022, and now the justices are deliberating whether to compel state lawmakers to readdress the drawing of district lines once more.
The case closely ties race and politics regarding the formulation of political boundaries in a court with conservative justices who have shown skepticism towards race-based considerations in political matters.
During hearings in March, several conservative justices indicated willingness to invalidate the current map, potentially making it more challenging to launch redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
Currently, the court is reviewing a map that includes a district with a second majority Black congressional seat out of Louisiana’s six House districts, which successfully elected a Black Democrat in 2024.
A three-judge panel had determined that the state overly relied on racial factors when crafting district lines, dismissing Louisiana’s assertion that political motives were the primary drivers, particularly regarding protecting the seats of influential congressional leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson.
The Supreme Court had allowed the contested map to be utilized last year while the case was pending.
This map was drafted after civil rights advocates achieved a court ruling declaring that a map containing only one majority Black district likely breached the significant voting rights statute.
Finally, justices are also considering a Texas law that aims to restrict minors’ access to online pornography, a move made by Texas and several other states that have implemented age verification regulations.
Proponents argue that such measures are crucial for preventing smartphone-facilitated access to online pornography for children.
However, the challenge rests in determining whether these laws infringe upon the constitutional rights of adults as well.
The Free Speech Coalition, a trade body representing the adult entertainment industry, agrees with the necessity of protecting children from pornography.
However, they contend that the Texas law is overly broad and unjustly imposes on adult users who would be required to share personal information online, presenting vulnerabilities to hacking or surveillance.
While some justices showed openness to upholding the law, there were also thoughts about returning it for more in-depth examination at a lower court level.
Concerns were raised regarding whether the lower court applied a rigorous enough legal standard to evaluate whether the Texas law and similar regulations could potentially clash with First Amendment rights.
image source from：https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2025/06/supreme-court-in-homestretch-here-are-some-of-the-biggest-cases-left-to-decide.html
