The marble facade of the Supreme Court gleams under the Washington sun, a stoic symbol of justice in a nation roiling with cultural and moral battles. This past term, the court didn’t just issue rulings — it threw down gauntlets, carving out a bold path for religious liberty and conservative values in an America increasingly at odds with its founding principles. For those who have watched the Left’s relentless march to secularize and sanitize public life, the 2024-2025 term was a thunderclap, a defiant assertion that faith still has a seat at the table. With President Donald Trump’s judicial legacy firmly entrenched, this past term’s decisions on religious and social issues signal a seismic shift, one that could redefine conservatism’s future and fortify religious liberty for generations.
Recommended Stories
- How Cracker Barrel’s logo ordeal explains American politics
- If a movie makes $2 billion and no Americans are around to see it, does it make a sound? Review of 'Ne Zha 2'
- Lepore grasp of the Constitution
The court’s recent term wasn’t just another chapter in the John Roberts era — it was a crusade, of sorts. From parental rights to tax exemptions to the tantalizing prospect of a religious charter school, the justices, bolstered by Trump’s trio of appointees, delivered a string of victories for those who believe faith should not be confined to the pews. These rulings, laced with constitutional grit, didn’t just push back against the progressive tide. They built a bulwark for a conservative vision of America in which religious conviction isn’t a liability but a cornerstone. Let’s unpack the term’s marquee cases, their significance, and what they portend for the soul of the nation.
Mahmoud v. Taylor: Parents strike back
Picture this: A group of Maryland parents, Christians, Muslims, and others, staring down a school board that decided their children must be exposed to storybooks celebrating LGBT themes — books with titles like Pride Puppy that wax poetic about drag queens and gender transitions. These parents didn’t want to ban the books. They just wanted the right to opt their children out of classroom discussions that clashed with their deeply held beliefs. Montgomery County Public Schools, bowing to progressive pressure, scrapped its opt-out policy, claiming it was too hard to administer and might “stigmatize” certain students. The parents sued, and the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, landed before the Supreme Court.
On June 27, 2025, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, delivered a historic win for parental rights. The court ruled that parents have a constitutional right under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to shield their children from instruction that contradicts their religious convictions — without needing to prove coercion. Alito’s opinion was a master class in clarity, dissecting the storybooks’ messages with a surgeon’s precision and including color images in an appendix to drive home the point: These weren’t neutral texts but ideological volleys aimed at young minds. “What the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum,” Alito wrote, “but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.”
The significance of Mahmoud cannot be overstated. For decades, public schools have been battlegrounds where progressive elites wield curricula as weapons to reshape young hearts and minds. This ruling hands parents a shield, affirming their role as the primary moral arbiters for their children. It’s a direct rebuke to the Left’s insistence that the state knows best, a notion that’s crept into classrooms from coast to coast. For conservatives, Mahmoud is a clarion call: The court is willing to protect the family unit from ideological overreach, a cornerstone of the conservative ethos that Trump championed in his judicial appointments.
Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin: Faith in the public square
Next, consider the case of Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. In Wisconsin, the Catholic Charities Bureau, an arm of the Superior diocese, sought an exemption from the state’s unemployment insurance tax, reserved for organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court had ruled against them, deeming their charitable work, feeding the poor and housing the homeless, “primarily secular.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, begged to differ. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not exactly a darling of the conservative set, wrote that Wisconsin’s ruling imposed an unconstitutional “denominational preference” by parsing the theological nuances of Catholic social ministry. The government, she declared, must remain neutral between religions, not play favorites based on its own secular biases.
This ruling is a gut punch to the bureaucratic tendency to compartmentalize faith, as if serving the poor can be neatly divorced from the religious convictions that inspire it. For conservatives, it’s a triumph of principle: Religious organizations shouldn’t have to check their beliefs at the door to participate in public life. The unanimity of the decision is particularly striking, suggesting that even the court’s liberal wing recognizes the danger of letting states play theology police. This case builds on a legacy of Trump-era rulings, such as Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020), that protect religious entities from being squeezed out of the public square by overzealous regulators. It’s a reminder that Trump’s judicial picks, from Neil Gorsuch to Brett Kavanaugh to Amy Coney Barrett, have shifted the court toward a robust defense of religious liberty, one that refuses to let bureaucrats dictate what counts as “religious enough.”
St. Isidore and the charter school stalemate
Then there’s the case that could have been a game-changer: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. This dispute centered on Oklahoma’s attempt to establish the nation’s first taxpayer-funded religious charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the plan, citing the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which bars government endorsement of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case, and during oral arguments, the Republican-appointed justices seemed poised to greenlight the school, arguing that parental choice negated any establishment concerns. But Barrett’s recusal led to a 4-4 deadlock, leaving the Oklahoma ruling intact and the question unresolved.
The deadlock is a missed opportunity, but it’s not the end of the road. The court’s Republican-appointed majority has already laid the groundwork for public funding of religious education in cases such as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2018) and Carson v. Makin (2022), which held that states can’t exclude religious schools from generally available funding programs. St. Isidore would have taken this logic a step further, treating religious charter schools as private entities chosen by parents, not arms of the state. The issue is almost certain to return, and with Barrett’s vote likely in play, conservatives have reason to be optimistic. A future ruling in favor of religious charter schools could revolutionize education, giving parents more options to align their children’s schooling with their faith — a priority for Trump’s base and a possible boon for conservative school choice advocates such as former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
The bigger picture: A court transformed
These cases aren’t just legal victories — they are cultural salvos. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican-appointed majority forged by Trump, is reshaping the legal landscape in ways that would make President Franklin D. Roosevelt blush. Where Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme failed to bend the judiciary to his will, Trump’s strategic appointments — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — have delivered a court that’s not just conservative but unapologetically so. This term’s rulings underscore a broader trend: Since 2012, religious liberty claims have won in all but one of the court’s 16 signed decisions on the First Amendment’s religion clauses. That’s not a streak. It’s a rout.
The significance of this term lies in its affirmation that religious liberty isn’t a second-class right. For too long, the Left has framed religious freedom as a pretext for bigotry, a cudgel to wield against marginalized groups. Cases such as 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), in which the court upheld a web designer’s right to decline same-sex wedding projects, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), which protected a coach’s right to pray on the field, show the court rejecting that narrative. Instead, it’s embracing a vision in which faith can coexist with public life, even when it clashes with progressive orthodoxy.
This shift has its critics. The American Civil Liberties Union and others cry that the court is blurring the lines between church and state and favoring Christians, especially white evangelicals, over everyone else. They point to cases such as Mahmoud and warn of a slippery slope toward theocracy. But this is hyperbole, and conservatives know it. The court isn’t imposing religion. It’s protecting it from being steamrolled by a secular state that increasingly demands ideological conformity. The Catholic Charities ruling, for instance, doesn’t privilege Catholicism — it ensures that the government doesn’t penalize religious organizations for living out their mission. And Mahmoud doesn’t ban LGBT books. It empowers parents to make choices for their children. These are not theocratic edicts but democratic corrections, restoring balance to a system that’s long tilted left.
The future of conservatism and religious liberty
What does this term portend for conservatism and religious liberty? First, it’s a testament to Trump’s enduring impact. His judicial appointments have given conservatives a court that’s not just a check on progressive overreach but a champion of their values. The Mahmoud ruling, for instance, aligns perfectly with the MAGA ethos of empowering people — parents, in this case — over faceless bureaucracies. It’s a nod to the grassroots energy that fueled Trump’s rise, a reminder that his legacy isn’t just in policy but in the judiciary’s DNA.
Second, these rulings signal that religious liberty is no longer a niche concern but a central pillar of the conservative agenda. The Christian Right, often maligned as a relic of the 1980s, is proving its staying power. From the Moral Majority to today’s Alliance Defending Freedom, conservative Christians have shifted from seeking broad legislative wins to securing targeted exemptions — a strategy that’s paying dividends. The court’s willingness to hear and rule on these cases, from Hobby Lobby (2014) to Catholic Charities, shows a judiciary attuned to the concerns of a demographic that remains a linchpin of the Republican coalition.
But challenges loom. The Left isn’t sitting idle. Democrats, stung by rulings like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade, are pushing to expand the court or impose term limits — moves that could dilute its conservative bent. Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) threats to “reform” the judiciary if it “betrays constitutional principles” are a stark reminder of the stakes. Meanwhile, progressive activists are doubling down on framing religious liberty as a threat to civil rights, a narrative that resonates with younger, less religious voters. The Pew Research Center notes that while 69% of Christians view the court favorably, only 51% of the religiously unaffiliated do — a gap that could widen as America’s “nones” grow.
For conservatives, the path forward is clear: Stay vigilant. The court’s rulings are victories, but they’re not impregnable. A future Democratic administration could shift the balance, especially if it capitalizes on public discontent over perceived “Christian privilege.” Conservatives must also grapple with the optics of their wins. Critics like the Rev. Naomi Washington-Leapheart argue that the court’s decisions favor a narrow slice of conservative Christianity, alienating moderate Christians and minority faiths. To counter this, conservatives need to broaden their coalition, emphasizing that religious liberty protects all faiths, not just one. The Mahmoud case, with its interfaith plaintiffs, is a model for this approach.
A new dawn for faith and freedom
As the sun sets on this Supreme Court term, conservatives have reason to celebrate — but not to rest. The rulings in Mahmoud and Catholic Charities and the near-miss in St. Isidore are milestones in a long war for the soul of America. They affirm that faith isn’t a private hobby but a public good, one that deserves protection from the encroachments of a secular state. Trump’s judicial legacy has given conservatives a court that’s not afraid to draw lines in the sand — to say that parents, not school boards, should guide children’s moral education and that religious organizations shouldn’t be taxed out of existence for living their faith.
HOGAN’S HEROES: A WRESTLING ICON AND THE POLITICAL DIVIDE
The future of conservatism and religious liberty hinges on sustaining this momentum. It means defending the court against progressive assaults, building broader coalitions, and articulating a vision of religious freedom that resonates beyond the evangelical base. It also means recognizing that these victories, while sweet, come with responsibility. Conservatives must wield their newfound judicial power with wisdom, ensuring that religious liberty uplifts rather than divides.
In the shadow of the Supreme Court’s marble columns, a new dawn is breaking. Thanks to the courage of Trump’s appointed justices, America is rediscovering what it means to be a nation where faith and freedom stand tall. The fight is far from over, but for now, the court has spoken — and conservatism is winning.
Daniel Ross Goodman is a Washington Examiner contributing writer, the author of three books, and the Allen and Joan Bildner visiting scholar at Rutgers University.