As the Supreme Court prepares for the new year, its docket promises significant rulings with implications for national security, free speech, gun control, and environmental policy.
While the cases may lack some of the blockbuster pull of last term’s decisions on presidential immunity and administrative authority, the outcomes of several cases before the court in the latter half of its 2024-25 term will redefine case law on matters ranging from culture war conflicts to entrenched regulations in Washington.
PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS ELECTS NEW LEADERS TO BATTLE GOP TRIFECTA
Here is a look at the cases before the justices this year:
TikTok and national security
The justices are set to hear arguments on Jan. 10 regarding a law that would ban TikTok nationwide unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, divests its U.S. operations. Proponents, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), argue the app poses a “clear national-security threat,” saying that the Chinese Communist Party wields influence over U.S. data and content.
TikTok, however, contends the ban would be an unprecedented restriction on speech, affecting its 170 million American users. The case is poised to address the intersection of technology, national security, and free speech.
Does the First Amendment preclude pornography age verification laws?
On Jan. 15, the Supreme Court will weigh in on a Texas law requiring websites to verify users’ ages before granting access to adult content in a case known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Supporters argue the measure protects minors from harmful exposure, citing studies that link early exposure to pornography with negative social and psychological outcomes.
Critics, including pornography providers, claim the law infringes on adults’ First Amendment rights and imposes undue burdens on platforms. The case could set a precedent for how courts balance free speech with child protection in the digital age.
‘MY WORD AS A BIDEN’: JOE DAMAGES PUBLIC TRUST WITH FLIP-FLOP HUNTER PARDON
Gun manufacturer accountability
On March 4, the court will hear Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a case brought by Mexico seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers accountable for violence fueled by illegal firearms smuggling. The lawsuit challenges the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, arguing that gunmakers knowingly profited from criminal markets.
This case could redefine the scope of liability for gun manufacturers and has broad implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Religious freedom and tax exemptions
The Supreme Court will address later this year whether the Catholic Charities Bureau can opt out of Wisconsin’s unemployment program after the state Supreme Court recently told the group that its ministry was not sufficiently religious.
Catholic Charities, operating under the Diocese of Superior and offering programs for the disabled, elderly, and impoverished, asserts that providing care to those in need, regardless of their faith, is an integral part of its Catholic religious mission.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Catholic Charities’ activities are not inherently religious because they serve and employ non-Catholics and make no “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,” noting the group provides services that could be similarly offered by secular organizations.
As a result of that decision, Wisconsin required the group to pay into the state’s unemployment compensation system and denied it the ability to join the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops’ own unemployment compensation system, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit firm handling the case.
BIDEN’S ‘TRUMP-PROOFING’ FOREIGN POLICY REVOLVES AROUND UKRAINE AND NATO
Catholic Charities is asking the Supreme Court to find that its charitable conduct is religious enough to qualify for tax exemption.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
A spring hearing will tackle whether states can restrict Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood in Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case determining whether states can bar abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding.
The dispute began in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order excluding abortion clinics from Medicaid reimbursements. Planned Parenthood challenged the order, resulting in federal courts twice restoring the organization’s funding, even after the Supreme Court ordered a reconsideration based on a 2022 precedent.
Representing South Carolina, Alliance Defending Freedom argues that federal Medicaid statutes do not allow recipients to sue states over provider qualifications. ADF’s lawyers have emphasized that taxpayer dollars should not fund abortion providers and defended states’ rights to set Medicaid qualifications.
Planned Parenthood says the case could limit access to essential healthcare for Medicaid recipients. Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the case threatens patients’ ability to choose their healthcare providers, while Jenny Black, president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, criticized it as a politically motivated attack on Medicaid patients’ access to services such as cancer screenings and birth control.
GREATEST COMEBACK? HERE’S HOW TRUMP STACKS UP IN WHITE HOUSE HISTORY
Decisions to watch
The Supreme Court has already weighed several high-profile cases in the first part of its term, with decisions that could be released in the coming months until the term finishes at the end of June.
Some of those cases include:
1. Ghost guns and electronic cigarettes: Rulings are expected by the end of June on cases involving the Biden administration’s regulation of untraceable firearms and flavored e-cigarettes.
2. Nondelegation doctrine: The justices will address whether Congress delegated excessive authority to the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund, possibly reviving a doctrine limiting executive agency power.
3. Environmental policy: In a trio of cases, the justices will decide where challenges to Environmental Protection Agency actions under the Clean Air Act should be heard — regional courts or the D.C. Circuit.
4. Transgender treatments for minors: The justices are weighing whether to uphold a Tennessee law barring transgender procedures for minors, a case questioning whether the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause precludes the measure.