Watch live: College of Science Undergraduate Celebration 1
The justices are gearing up to issue decisions in cases that touch on all aspects of American society — from transgender rights and LGBTQ+ instruction, to the limits of executive and judicial authority.
The Supreme Court is gearing up to issue decisions in cases that touch on all aspects of American society — from transgender rights and LGBTQ+ instruction to the limits of executive and judicial authority.
Here are five cases that could be decided in the coming days.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond
The Supreme Court is weighing whether efforts in Oklahoma to sponsor an online religious charter school are consistent with First Amendment protections. It comes after the state approved an application from the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to create St. Isidore of Seville, a virtual Catholic charter school.
The National Charter School Resource Center defines a charter school as a public school that operates as a school of choice, but is exempt from certain state and local regulations otherwise applicable to other public schools. Charter schools receive public funds and are therefore publicly accountable in terms of results, but enjoy a degree of autonomy from the rules.
Oklahoma requires that a charter school be “nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices and all other operations.” Opponents of the law argue that abolishing the distinction between secular and religious charter schools allows private educators to address a growing need for educational choice, particularly in underserved communities.
“In the relatively recent past, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment prohibits the government from directly funding religious schools,” says Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern University, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court. “They can pay for textbooks or buses or provide vouchers, but they can’t directly subsidize religious schools. But in recent years, they have started to permit more state involvement in religious schools.”
With Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused, the justices appeared evenly divided over the issue during an April hearing.
United States v. Skrmetti
In a highly watched case, the Supreme Court is reviewing whether laws in Tennessee and Kentucky banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Enacted in July 2023, Tennessee Senate Bill 1 prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow a minor “to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent” with their sex, or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”
Like Tennessee’s law, Kentucky’s also targets treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and sex-transition surgeries.
Transgender advocates, parents and health care providers asked judges in two districts to issue preliminary injunctions to prevent the laws from taking effect. In those districts, the judges granted the requests, noting that the laws infringe on parental rights to direct their children’s medical care and perpetuate sex discrimination.
An appeals court stayed the pair of injunctions pending further proceedings.
Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton
The Texas legislature passed a law requiring websites that display sexual material to implement age verification methods, as well as display specific health warnings on their landing pages and advertisements. The law went into effect in September 2023 and was subsequently challenged by plaintiffs claiming the law violates their First Amendment rights and conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
A trade group for the adult entertainment industry led the challenge. A district court judge issued a pre-enforcement preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, which was then appealed. Last year, a federal appeals court in New Orleans vacated the injunction, noting that the law was “rationally related” to the state’s interest in barring minors from viewing pornography — but affirmed the health warnings.
The court heard the case on Jan. 15.
“Based on oral argument, it seems like the justices will allow the government to require age-verification for online pornography,” Urman says.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Another case set to be decided this term looks at whether parents can opt their elementary-age children out of classroom instruction involving LGBTQ+ themes. After a local school board in Maryland integrated new books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes into its 2022 curriculum, the Montgomery school district provided parents with notice of the topics and the opportunity to excuse their children.
Parents did so, but the school district soon revoked the opt-out policy, citing rising absenteeism.
At issue is whether the board’s refusal to allow parental opt-out violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious convictions, depriving them of the ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality in accordance with their faith.
During an April 22 hearing, a majority of conservative justices seemed to side with the group of Maryland parents, suggesting that exposure to instruction pertaining to LGBTQ+ themes may be coercive. The liberal wing largely disagreed.
Birthright citizenship
On May 15, the Supreme Court will hold oral arguments to decide whether a Trump administration executive action curtailing so-called birthright citizenship — the doctrine that anyone born in the U.S. automatically attains citizenship.
The case began on the court’s emergency docket before the court decided to hold a special session to review the matter, Urman says. Altogether, the court is hearing three cases challenging a Jan. 20 executive order that effectively rewrites the 14th Amendment provision pertaining to birthright citizenship by excluding those born to mothers who were “unlawfully present” or “lawful but temporary.”
The court will also be reviewing the judges’ authority in issuing the injunctions, which will indirectly determine to what degree the administration’s changes can be implemented.
But experts see the case as an uphill battle for the administration.
“The case is about the larger legal principle about whether a single district court judge can effectively block a national policy,” Urman says. “But fundamentally it’s also about whether President Trump can revoke birthright citizenship, and I don’t think there are more than one or two votes on that position.”
“What the government is asking the Supreme Court to review is not the legality or constitutionality of birthright citizenship, because that’s a battle they know they will lose,” says Sahar Abi-Hassan, an assistant professor of political science at Northeastern. “We have over a century of precedent elaborating on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
‘Culture wars’ and executive authority
The court is wading deep into cultural war issues in cases that touch on the rights of transgender people, LGBTQ+ pedagogy and the expression of religious faith in public education.
At the same time, the court has intervened in a series of challenges to Trump administration actions taken early in 2025. It issued decisions on an emergency basis in cases involving a mistakenly deported Maryland man; the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in deporting migrants; and an executive action to freeze payments to USAID contractors.
Some experts have argued that the administration has ignored both federal court rulings and the Supreme Court ruling, creating a constitutional crisis. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court intervenes further in any of the aforementioned cases; but Urman notes that, at least as it relates to birthright citizenship, the administration and the court appear to be on a collision course.
“Trump has generally prevailed at the Supreme Court on the bottom line issues, especially those involving foreign policy and executive power,” Urman says. “Trump this term is testing how far the Supreme Court will go; but early signs suggest that the court has a line that he has either already crossed, or is about to cross.”
The administration has numerous other emergency applications before the Supreme Court.
“I think he can lose on a lot of this stuff because his actions have been so flagrantly unlawful that it crosses a line for people like Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett, who care about the court’s reputation, but more fundamentally, the propriety of government,” Urman says.
Overall, Urman says that the court is “clearly leaning in a more conservative direction,” but “will likely push back” against what they perceive as “radical or reactionary” moves by the administration.