Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, the DC Download, to get updates on what’s happening on the Hill, what we are reading, key issues to watch, and progressive analysis and tools.

 
 

DC Download 05.27.2025

The Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 Term

Welcome to this week’s Special Edition DC Download, where we’ll be taking a look at some of the Supreme Court’s key cases this term. Since the start of its term, the Court has weighed in on issues ranging from environmental protections, gun regulations, police accountability, and the boundaries between church and state. Some of these cases have already reshaped key legal and policy debates, while others—touching on everything from voting rights, healthcare access, and protected speech—are still awaiting decisions. 

While this isn’t an exhaustive list, the cases covered here offer a glimpse into the sweeping scope of this term and its influence. Below, you’ll find a roundup of key decisions already handed down, as well as a look ahead at what’s still on the docket.

A full list of Supreme Court cases decided this term is available here.

Decided Cases as of May 22: 

CaseDate DecidedDecisionSummary
TikTok Inc. v. GarlandJanuary 17, 20256-3The Court upheld a federal law requiring ByteDance to divest from TikTok or face a U.S. ban, citing alleged national security concerns.
City and County of San Francisco v. EPAMarch 4, 20255-4The Court limited the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act, narrowing federal oversight of local water discharge permits.
Bondi v. VanDerStokMarch 26, 20257-2The Court upheld the ATF’s authority to regulate ghost gun kits under the Gun Control Act.
Barnes v. FelixMay 15, 20259-0The Court ruled that courts must consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating use of deadly force by police.
A.A.R.P v. TrumpMay 16, 20255-4The Court ruled that individuals targeted under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process protections.
OK Charter School Board v. DrummondMay 22, 20254-4The court deadlocked, leaving in place a ruling blocking Oklahoma from funding a religious charter school with government dollars.

Undecided Cases as of May 22:

United States v. Skrmetti – Transgender Rights

This case involves a challenge to determine whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Under the law, health providers are prohibited from administering a medical procedure or prescribing or dispensing hormones to minors when provided in a way the state considers “inconsistent” with a person’s sex designated at birth. Health providers who violate the law could face $25,000 fines, civil penalties, and professional discipline. The plaintiffs—three transgender individuals and their parents—are calling on the Supreme Court to block the law’s restrictions on hormone therapy on the grounds of sex-based discrimination. The court’s ruling could serve as a bellwether for how far the Court is willing to go in allowing states to override individuals’ personal medical decisions—in this case, parents’ ability to make medical decisions for their children—with implications for trans individuals’ access to life-saving care at any age. Currently, 26 states have passed laws that ban all forms of gender-affirming care for trans youth. 

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton – Protected Speech

In 2023, Texas joined a number of states in passing an age verification law for accessing websites deemed harmful for minors. The Texas law requires websites to verify the age of all users if “one-third or more the content is harmful to minors.” It also requires sites to “publish sexual materials health warnings” written by the state. Impacted plaintiffs are challenging the Texas law on First Amendment grounds, alleging that the age-verification requirement “impermissibly burdens users and that the health warnings impermissibly compel speech.” Additionally, the plaintiffs claim the verification requirements unlawfully restrict adults’ freedom to access websites that may include pornographic material and rob people of anonymity. After a Fifth Circuit ruling allowed the age-restriction requirements to go into effect, the Supreme Court will decide what legal scrutiny should be applied when courts examine the constitutionality of age verification laws that burden adults’ access to protected speech. 

Mahmoud v. Taylor – LGBTQ+ Curriculum Opt-Out

In 2023, a group of parents in Montgomery County, MD sued their local school district after the district stopped allowing parents to opt their children out of storybooks and classroom discussions that included LGBTQ+ characters or themes. The plaintiffs argue that mandatory exposure to certain materials violates their First Amendment religious freedoms. The case reflects the broader national debate over parental rights and LGBTQ+ visibility in public schools, and whether public school parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of curriculum that includes books or materials representing queer people as part of everyday life. Legally, the Court will decide whether parents can use religious liberty claims to exempt their children from inclusive public education standards. For the public, the case raises the broader question of whether one can really deny LGBTQ+ people’s existence without reinforcing stigma and erasure.

 

Louisiana v. Callais – Voting Rights

This case stems from a years-long legal battle over Louisiana’s congressional map after the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-controlled legislature  passed a congressional redistricting plan that maintained only one majority Black district out of six, despite nearly one-third of the state’s population being Black. A federal district struck that map down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act. In response, the legislature redrew the map to include a second majority-Black district to prevent court intervention. Now, a group of white voters is suing, arguing that the new map constitutes racial gerrymandering by giving Black voters undue voting power. The Court will weigh how far states can go in creating additional majority-minority districts to remedy past violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Becerra v. Braidwood Management – Preventative Care Access

This case challenges the Affordable Care Act’s popular preventative care provision, which allows enrollees to access services like cancer screenings, contraception, immunizations, and HIV prevention medication (PrEP) without cost-sharing. A group of Christian-owned businesses and individuals filed suit after the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, recommended that insurance plans cover PrEP. The plaintiffs claim the Task Force’s role in making these recommendations was invalid and unconstitutional. While the challenge was triggered by objections to HIV prevention specifically, the implications extend far beyond that. If the Court agrees with the plaintiffs, it could gut one of the ACA’s most critical benefits and end guaranteed no-cost access to a broad range of preventative services for over 150 million people.


Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic – Abortion Funding

In South Carolina, state officials moved to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, even for non-abortion-related healthcare services like cancer screenings and contraception. In response, Planned Parenthood and patients sued, claiming the exclusion violates federal Medicaid rules guaranteeing patient choice of provider. The case now before the Supreme Court will determine whether states can lawfully defund abortion providers from Medicaid, potentially limiting access to reproductive care across the country.

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos – Gun Manufacturer Liability

The Supreme Court will also hear a case that will decide whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held liable for gun violence in Mexico as a result of illegal gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels. Notably, this case involves the application of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In a reversal from a previous district court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that while PLCAA does apply to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit is valid because gun manufacturers knowingly aided and abetted illegal gun trafficking in violation of U.S. law. Now that the case rests within the hands of the highest U.S. court, it signifies a significant test to the gun industry’s immunity from liability claims. 

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – Reverse Discrimination

The Court could lower the bar for white employees to bring employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justices will consider whether workers from “majority backgrounds” (e.g., white, heterosexual, male) should be held to a heightened standard of proof in demonstrating workplace discrimination. The case involves a straight, white Ohio woman who was demoted and replaced by a gay man, and passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman. Title VII protections apply equally to white workers, but given the historical context underlying the federal law, some courts require plaintiffs of majority groups to show more proof to support claims of employer discrimination, in the absence of direct evidence. If the Supreme Court strikes down this requirement, known as the “background circumstances” test, it could make it easier for plaintiffs from majority groups to raise “reverse discrimination” claims in court. This comes against the backdrop of the high Court’s ruling in June 2023 on affirmative action, which has given way to many organizations and institutions abandoning DEI initiatives and the proliferation of “reverse discrimination” lawsuits that undermine efforts to promote equal opportunity.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo – Environmental Impacts

Justices will review a lower court decision that halted construction of the Uinta Basin Railway, a project that would carry waxy crude oil through Utah and Colorado to Gulf Coast refineries. If completed, this railway could facilitate the release of 58.5 million tons of carbon pollution yearly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the railway’s approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—a federal law requiring agencies to assess environmental effects before approving construction—by failing to account for the railway’s potential long-term harm to the climate, wildlife, and communities. 

SCOTUS will determine whether NEPA requires federal agencies to consider “proximate” impacts to the environment when making permitting decisions. In this case, those proximate impacts include the environmental and public health harm the railway will enable long after it is built—not just the harm its construction causes. Ultimately, the case will determine the extent to which the federal government may use its discretion to assess the full range of effects environmentally harmful infrastructure may cause. This, in turn, will have long-term implications for environmental justice communities and the fight against climate change.

Martin v. United States – Federal Law Enforcement Accountability

In a case that echoes growing concerns about government overreach and law enforcement accountability, this case involves a suit against the U.S. government after FBI agents executed a violent pre-dawn raid at the wrong home. The family alleges the agents caused physical and psychological harm, and that qualified immunity has shielded agents involved from consequences. The Court will decide whether victims of such raids have a viable path to justice when constitutional violations occur under federal authority.

With Pride month around the corner, we’re also spotlighting key anniversaries of landmark LGBTQ+ Supreme Court decisions—both victories and setbacks—to reflect on how far the fight for equality has come, and how far it still must go.

Key Dates

May 26-30: House and Senate in recess

June: LGBTQ+ Pride Month

June: Immigrant Heritage Month

June 4: Seventh Anniversary of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

June 15: Fifth Anniversary of Bostock v. Clayton County 

June 16-20: House in recess

Jun 19-20: Senate in recess

June 19: Juneteenth

June 20: World Refugee Day

June 24-July 7: Senate is in recess

June 26: Tenth Anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges

June 26:  22nd Anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas

June 26: 12th Anniversary of United States v. Windsor