Supreme Court watchers are most eagerly awaiting the justices’ decision on whether a state can ban medical treatment for transgender youth, saying it is the top case of the 2024-2025 term.

Other key cases include a dispute over books featuring LGBTQ themes in public schools for students in pre-K through 12th grade and another over age verification requirements for accessing adult websites.

But most legal experts have their eyes fixed on United States v. Skrmetti — the transgender youth medical ban out of Tennessee as the high court prepares to release its rulings for the current term, which is set to end next month.

Josh Blackman, professor at South Texas College of Law, said the dispute “is the biggest merits docket case,” while Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said he is “focusing on Skrmetti.”

United States v. Skrmetti involves Tennessee law, S.B. 1, which passed in 2023. It bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender transition medical procedures for minors looking to change their birth gender. (Skrmetti refers to Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti.)

The Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the ban amounted to sex discrimination. But officials representing the state of Tennessee said the law is aimed not at sex but the use of drugs, arguing states should be able to regulate them.

A federal appellate court rejected the sex discrimination claims and allowed Tennessee’s law to take effect, which prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.

If the justices decide the law doesn’t implicate sex discrimination, Tennessee has a lower burden in justifying the ban. If they rule the law does discriminate based on sex, the case will go back to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for review and Tennessee would be required to meet a higher burden for justifying it.

Skrmetti is the first major transgender rights case that the justices have agreed to hear since 2020, when they issued a landmark decision saying that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Oral arguments for Skrmetti drew the most attention inside the courtroom, with the press section completely filled — a rare occurrence since the justices began livestreaming audio during the COVID pandemic.

But the most attention outside the courtroom may belong to President Trump and his effort to end birthright citizenship.

It’s another major dispute pending at the high court after states and individuals challenged Mr. Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, wherein a child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen regardless of the parents’ nationality and immigration status.

The challengers say the executive order violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the U.S.

But the issue the justices are actually weighing is that of a lower court issuing a nationwide injunction that has blocked the order from taking effect across the country.

It’s an issue Mr. Trump has been running into frequently as he tries to implement his agenda through dozens of executive actions within weeks of taking office. Many have been met with legal challenges.

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said the transgender case and the birthright citizenship issue over nationwide injunctions are major disputes for “producing headlines.” But he pointed to two others that fellow court watchers say are blockbusters for the term.

One involves the public school system in Montgomery County, Maryland, which has required students in pre-K through elementary school to attend story time involving LGBTQ-themed books.

Parents of different faiths and the ACLU have challenged the school system’s decision to remove an opt-out option since the books discuss gender transitioning and LGBTQ issues.

The Montgomery County Board of Education in 2022 allowed the curriculum to include storybooks that celebrate pronouns, pride parades and gender transitioning. Parents were notified and told they could opt out their children.

In 2023, the school board removed the notice and the opt-out option. Parents sued in federal court over First Amendment concerns and asked the court to require the opt-out option. They lost in the lower court, and the justices took up their appeal.

The case is Tamer Mahmoud v. Thomas W. Taylor (superintendent of the Montgomery County school system).

The justices are also considering a dispute out of Texas over access to adult websites.

At issue is Texas House Bill 1181, which requires online adult content providers to implement age verification for accessing their sites.

When the state enacted the measure in 2023, Texas aimed to deter the flow of adult images and materials to anyone younger than 18. A violation of the law could cost a company more than $10,000.

Challengers to the law say the age verification requirements — like entering personal information — run afoul of the First Amendment.

The justices appeared sympathetic to the state law during oral arguments, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noting that the nature of pornography has changed over the years.

The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.

The justices are expected to announce their decisions by the end of June.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.