Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term, which started in October, 2024. While they publish no end date, historically, justices issue decisions in all cases previously argued by the end of June, sometimes just dipping into July. There are now 16 such cases remaining, plus one more that is of great interest and concern to many Americans. Here is a rundown of six of the cases generating the most attention and another issue that may prove the most consequential.
Trump v. CASA
Perhaps the biggest issue before the Court is not a proper case at all but a request for a preliminary injunction to stop Donald Trump’s January 20th executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump’s order (EO.1160) denies that US citizenship is automatically conferred simply for being born in-country, which has been the understood rule since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed – a “reconstruction” amendment enacted after the Civil War. The order argues this understanding is not required by the 14th Amendment and that the administration will chart a new course, refusing to grant citizenship to those whose parents are just visiting the US and, most impactful politically, illegal aliens, amongst others.
The Supreme Court combined all the challenges to the order into one and heard arguments on the issue on May 15th. The lower court judge who issued the most broadly reaching restriction, a universal prohibition, was Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee behind another ruling appealed in a huge case this term, Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
The issue here is whether public schools may compel elementary students to undergo instruction/indoctrination on gender and sexuality “against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out.” Do parents have a legal right to know the administration is trying to teach in ways that may undermine the moral and religious foundation many parents wish to instill? This case was argued on April 22.
FCC v. Consumers’ Research
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research presents a question on a major constitutional issue, the nondelegation doctrine. The doctrine stands for the notion that Congress, no other branch or office, has the power to legislate, and Congress may not delegate this power. Generally, conservatives and libertarians argue for a strict application of this principle, while leftists prefer a liberal interpretation, allowing for many more actions by bodies other than Congress, such as regulatory agencies.
In FCC v. Consumers’ Research, one of the questions is whether Congress violated the Constitution by authorizing the FCC to determine many aspects of how the Universal Service Fund (USF) would work. The USF is a subsidy fund paid for by those of us with telephones, who are taxed to provide the funding. This case has the potential to impact a great deal more than the subsidy at hand, however. It is closely watched because the current Court could significantly dial back its tolerance for delegation, which would be a major win for anti-establishment individual rights proponents. This case was argued on March 26.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
Kennedy has some overlap with FCC v. Consumers’ Research. It concerns whether the US Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution because its members are not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Instead, they are appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The task force decides which “preventive health services” private insurers and group health plans must cover under the Affordable Care Act.
Groups with religious objections to covering an HIV prevention medication challenged an HHS rule by attacking the legality of the task force itself. The case was argued on April 21. The Court made an unusual request after the oral arguments in this case, asking lawyers for both sides to submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue in light of specific earlier Supreme Court cases.
U.S. v. Skrmetti
Skrmetti is a challenge to a Tennessee law banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors. The Court will decide whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This case was initially brought by the Biden administration, which argued against the law. The Trump administration later changed the official position of the executive branch to argue the law should be allowed to stand. This case was argued on December 4.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
This case is about Texas’ age verification law for adult websites. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, our nation’s most conservative, said the law was valid, applying an intermediate level of review. This went against free speech proponents’ arguments, which wanted strict scrutiny applied – a much tougher hurdle to jump – and one that would likely require them to throw out the law. This case was argued on March 24.
Louisiana v. Callais
This case concerns a sort of reverse racism complaint around voting rights in Louisiana. A federal court imposed itself against the Louisiana legislature, tossing out a voting district map and requiring a new one, with two districts created to contain majorities of black people. These so-called majority-minority districts were then challenged by “non African-American” voters, who claimed that they were unconstitutional because of being racially discriminatory. The case may have a large impact on the momentum of race-based preferences in the country. It was argued on January 15.
Liberty Nation News will be following all these cases and bringing you the analysis without the spin.