As the Supreme Court‘s term nears its end, the high court is slated to release opinions in high-profile cases over the coming weeks.

While the justices have released decisions in cases regarding the federal TikTok sell or ban law and rules tightening restrictions on so-called “ghost guns” earlier in the term, many of the top cases are still awaiting their fate or have been decided in the closing weeks of the term, which concludes at the end of June.

Recommended Stories

• Trumpworld turns on Leonard Leo as judicial rift widens
• Clarence Thomas blasts Supreme Court for punting on legality of AR-15 ban
• Trump administration asks Supreme Court to stop order blocking federal workforce cuts

Opting out of LGBT books in Maryland schools

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide whether Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools burden the religious liberty of parents by mandating that children participate in gender ideology instruction without parents having the option to opt out their children and without receiving notice.

Oral arguments for the case were held on April 22, and the Supreme Court appeared ready to side with parents over the school district.

Lawyers for the parents suing the district argued the school board violated their First Amendment rights when it removed their ability to opt their children out of LGBT books. The school board’s lawyers argued that opening the door for sweeping opt-outs for curriculum parents disagree with would “conscript courts into the role of playing school board.”

The high court’s decision is expected to have major implications for religious liberty claims and parents’ influence over their children’s education.

Tennessee transgender medical procedure laws

In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court will decide whether Tennessee’s law banning transgender medical procedures for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The high-stakes case was heard by the Supreme Court on Dec. 4, 2024, and the justices appeared skeptical during oral arguments of the assertion by the Biden Department of Justice that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 was unconstitutional. Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice argued before the court that there was no “sex-based line” in the law, which would violate the 14th Amendment.

The outcome of the case is expected to have ramifications for 20 other states that have similar laws banning transgender procedures for minors.

Texas age verification for pornography websites

In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the high court will decide whether a Texas law aimed at restricting minors’ access to pornographic websites interferes with an adult’s First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on Jan. 16, and the justices appeared open to upholding the age verification laws at the center of the case. Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson defended the law by arguing to the justices that it protects minors without infringing on the rights of adults who wish to view the content. Derek Shaffer, a lawyer representing the adult entertainment industry, argued before the high court that the age verification laws infringe on adults’ rights to view the content by requiring them to submit personal information to view pornography. Shaffer argued that families can filter content on their own devices.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case is expected to have implications beyond Texas, as 19 states have similar laws.

Birthright citizenship nationwide injunctions

In the consolidated emergency appeal by the Trump administration in the cases Trump v. CASA Inc., Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court will decide a question about nationwide injunctions, which have blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.

The high court heard arguments in the case on May 15, the final arguments day of the current term, and the justices appeared uncertain on the best path forward regarding the overuse of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. The arguments focused heavily on a remedy and standard for district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, rather than on the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case will be one of the most closely watched of the term. The scope of the ruling, including whether it addresses only nationwide injunctions or the merits of the executive order at issue, will be a key part of the decision. The merits question of the birthright citizenship order could potentially return to the high court later if the justices decline to weigh in on it now.

Gunmaker liability

In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the high court will decide whether the Mexican government can sue U.S. gunmakers over claims they have contributed to drug cartel violence because they manufactured weapons used by the cartel members.

The high court heard arguments in the case on March 4 and appeared set to reject Mexico’s argument that the gunmakers can be sued over cartel violence. The U.S. gunmakers argued before the justices that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields them from lawsuits for when their products are misused, while Mexico argued the gunmakers’ actions fall into an exemption in the law, which opens them up to liability. Both conservative and liberal justices were skeptical of Mexico’s argument, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh warning it could expand liability in other industries.

The decision by the Supreme Court will have sweeping implications for gunmaker liabilities under federal law.

Oklahoma religious charter school

In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on May 22 when it decided to uphold the lower appeals court’s decision to block the approval of a charter for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School because of its religious affiliation. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.

TRUMP TARIFFS APPEAR DESTINED FOR SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Oklahoma was violating the Equal Protection Clause by excluding religious schools from the charter school program, or if the state could justify excluding those schools by invoking the First Amendment clause preventing the establishment of a state religion.

The high court held oral arguments in the case on April 30, and justices appeared open to allowing the state to grant the religious school the charter. However, the unsigned decision issued by the justices weeks later did not elaborate on their split decision.