2024-2025 Supreme Court Term Preview

United States v. Skrmetti

The Court heard oral arguments in Skrmetti on December 4, 2024. The conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold Tennessee’s law, with Justices Thomas and Alito framing the issue as one of age discrimination rather than sex-based discrimination. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about the judiciary’s role in what they viewed as a policy matter better suited for the legislature. Justice Barrett focused on a substantive due process argument related to parental rights, though this issue was not part of the case at hand. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan strongly argued that the law clearly discriminates based on sex. 

Skrmetti concerns a Tennessee law that bans gender affirming care for minors. The plaintiffs, three transgender Tennesseans and their parents, are challenging the law on equal protection grounds. Under Tennessee’s transphobic law, minors would be barred from accessing medically necessary care such as hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers. The law would also require individuals currently undergoing treatment to abandon their medically advised healthcare regimens. The district court paused the ban, finding that “parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of a parents to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children.” The Sixth Circuit then reinstated the ban, and now the Biden administration is leading the case on behalf of these families before the Supreme Court.

Approximately 1.6 million Americans identify as transgender, and this case could have enormous repercussions for their ability to access medically necessary care. To date, 35 major national and international medical organizations have expressed support for gender affirming care, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Health Organization. Per the American Nurses Association: “These restrictive laws interfere with the trust and confidentiality between patients, parents or guardians, and clinicians in the delivery of evidence-based care. The legislative intent and medical claims behind these laws are not grounded in reputable science and conflict with the nurse’s obligation to promote, advocate, and protect the rights, health, and safety of patients.” Upholding Tennessee’s ban would be devastating not only to transgender individuals in Tennessee but also to the thousands of transgender Americans living in the two dozen states that have already passed similar bans.

Mahmoud v. Taylor 

At issue in Mahmoud v. Taylor is whether the use of LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks and teaching on gender and sexuality in public schools interferes with the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause. The case arose following a group of Maryland parents’ discontent with the use of LGBTQ-themed storybooks without prior notice or opportunity to opt their children out. They allege that exposure to the storybooks curtails their First Amendment right to freely exercise religion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a ruling of a U.S. District Court which found that the parents had not sufficiently demonstrated that exposure to the storybooks violated their religious freedom. Both the District Court and Circuit Court refused to issue a preliminary injunction which would require the school district to notify the parents that the storybooks would be used and allow religious families to opt out.

The parents appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to rule on whether public school instruction on gender and sexuality unfairly burdens parents’ religious exercise rights. Yet again, the conservative-majority Court will weigh in on sensitive LGBTQ+ matters and may potentially cut back on progress made in public education with regards to inclusive instruction.

The Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. 

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

The Court heard oral arguments in Bouarfa on October 15, 2024. The justices appeared skeptical of the petitioner’s argument and seemed to lean toward supporting the government’s position, which gives the secretary broad discretionary authority to revoke a non-citizen spouse’s visa after it has been approved. 

Mrs. Bouarfa filed an immigration petition requesting that her husband be reclassified as her immediate relative. The reclassification request was approved but later rescinded after the secretary of homeland security determined that Mr. Hamayal, Bouarfa’s husband and father of her three children, had formerly married someone solely for immigration purposes. Bouarfa appealed the secretary’s decision, but the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected her claim. She then sued the secretary in district court, arguing that the secretary’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The case was eventually dismissed after the secretary argued that the decision to revoke Hamayal’s immediate relative status was nonreviewable. According to the defendants, while the approval or rejection of immediate relative petitions is nondiscretionary and therefore reviewable, the subsequent revocation of a petition is discretionary and therefore nonreviewable.

If the Supreme Court sides with the secretary, that would leave the door open to agencies granting an immigration petition and then overturning it later, leaving U.S. citizen spouses with no opportunity to have their case heard in federal court. This is a profoundly troubling case for the millions of Americans married to spouses from other countries.

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla.

Stanley asks whether an individual who is no longer employed by a company can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disability discrimination in the allocation of post-employment benefits. Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida until she retired due to Parkinson’s Disease. At the time of her retirement, the city had a policy providing free health care to firefighters who left the force due to a disability. Four years after her retirement, the policy was changed, thereby leaving Stanley without free health care access. She then sued under the ADA, alleging that she was discriminated against due to her disability.

This case is enormously significant for the 70 million+ Americans with disabilities because, if an employer can get away with discrimination as long as the employee no longer works for them, that would create an enormous gap in their protection. Disabled Americans should have the same ability to change jobs as others, but a ruling against Stanley could force employees to stay in jobs for fear of losing their hard-earned post-employment benefits.

The Court will hear oral arguments in this case January 13, 2025.

A.J.T. V. Osseo Area Schools, et al 

A.J.T., a student with severe epilepsy, sued the Osseo Area Schools district, alleging disability discrimination after the school denied her request for evening instruction. Due to her condition, A.J.T. could not attend school until noon, and her parents asked the district to provide evening classes so she could have a school day comparable to her peers. When the district refused, A.J.T. filed a lawsuit under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the school was discriminating against her.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school, ruling that A.J.T. had not shown that the district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, noting that while A.J.T. might have proven negligence or indifference, she failed to meet the higher standard required for liability in educational discrimination cases. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must show that school officials acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment, which A.J.T. did not demonstrate in this case.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of A.J.T., it could lessen the burden for holding schools accountable in disability discrimination cases, making it easier for students to prove violations of the ADA or Section 504. Conversely, if the Court upholds the 8th Circuit’s decision, it will maintain the higher “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard. This would make it harder for students to win cases unless there’s clear evidence of egregious wrongdoing, potentially limiting legal recourse for students with disabilities who face inadequate accommodations.

The court will hear oral arguments on Monday, April 28, 2025.

Seven County Infrastructure v. Eagle County, Colo.

The Court heard oral arguments in Seven County Infrastructure on December 10, 2024. The justices appeared skeptical of a proposed test that would limit the scope of NEPA reviews, expressing concerns about its rigidity and its potential to be inappropriately applied across different projects. However, the Court seemed to acknowledge that the environmental impact statements considered in the lower courts seemed to meet the necessary standards. 

The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed major construction projects. This case concerns one such project: a railroad connecting Utah’s Uinta Basin to the national rail network. Eagle County, the plaintiff, sued to stop construction of the railroad under NEPA, arguing that the Surface Transportation Board (tasked with approving new railway projects) did not do a sufficiently thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the railroad. Among other things, the Board did not consider the impact the railroad would have on oil drilling both in Utah and other states.

The Uinta Basin produces a significant amount of waxy crude oil and the railway would connect the basin to major refineries across the U.S., thereby leading to a likely increase in oil drilling and the various environmental hazards that come with it. The Board argued that it did not need to consider environmental impacts it could not control in its NEPA analysis and that increased drilling in other regions and the threat of oil spills did not need to be considered in approving the project. This case could narrow the scope of environmental review under NEPA, thereby allowing environmentally damaging projects to move forward. In the fight against climate change, Seven County Infrastructure could deal yet another damaging blow to our nation’s environment.

Oklahoma v EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA  

The Supreme Court is set to hear cases that could impact the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to defend its clean air regulations, specifically those involving state plans, in the D.C. Circuit Court. The main controversy revolves around whether disputes over these regulations, which are implemented on a state-by-state basis, should be heard exclusively in the D.C. Circuit or in regional circuit courts.

Challengers, including states and industry groups, argue that these cases should be addressed regionally, citing a recent decision by the Fifth Circuit that vacated the EPA’s denial of exemptions for small refineries, asserting the rules were not “nationally applicable.” Conversely, supporters of the EPA argue that the D.C. Circuit is better equipped to handle these complex national regulations, ensuring consistency and uniformity in legal interpretations.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing challenges in regional courts, it could lead to significant legal inconsistencies and increased costs for the EPA. This decision would also potentially diminish the agency’s capacity to enforce nationwide environmental standards effectively, as regional courts may interpret the regulations differently.

Garland v. VanDerStok

The Court heard oral arguments in VanDerstok on October 8, 2024. A majority appeared to favor upholding the constitutionality of a rule issued by the ATF under the Gun Control Act. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch argued that the regulation did not align with historical firearm regulations. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett expressed concerns about the broader implications of overturning the rule. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson seemed more supportive of the ATF’s regulation. 

The controversy in this case involves the federal government’s regulation of “ghost guns,” firearms that can be privately assembled from either separate parts or 3D printing and used as functional weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1986 requires licensing and recordkeeping for firearms. There is no specific definition for “frame” or “receiver” in the statute, leading to issues with ghost guns that lack serial numbers and transfer records. In 2022, after a rise in crimes related to untraceable weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a rule that included weapon parts kits and partially completed frames or receivers as “firearms” for the purposes of regulation.

Firearm manufacturers and other related advocacy groups contested the new rule. The district court ruled that these definitions were inconsistent with the act and struck down the entire rule, including sections that were not contested in the lawsuit. The government appealed, and the Fifth Circuit temporarily blocked the district court’s ruling on the uncontested parts but did not offer additional relief. If the Supreme Court rules against the rule, it could lead to a resurgence of ghost guns on the streets, making it harder to enforce many existing gun violence prevention laws by allowing individuals to readily assemble fully functional firearms without background checks or serial numbers.

Louisiana v. Callais / Robinson v. Callais 

The Supreme Court will soon hear two appeals challenging the redistricting of Louisiana’s congressional map, focusing on the creation of a second majority-Black district. The controversy stems from the state’s adoption of Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8) after a 2022 federal court ruling found the previous map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that dilute the voting power of minority groups. The new map, designed to comply with the Voting Rights Act, drew a second majority-Black district, but opponents argue it constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, claiming the map prioritizes race over other considerations, such as political interests.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could have broad implications for both the Voting Rights Act and redistricting practices nationwide. A decision upholding the lower court’s finding of racial gerrymandering may limit the scope of the Voting Rights Act’s protections in future redistricting efforts, potentially making it harder for minority groups to seek judicial intervention when electoral maps are drawn.

Barnes v. Felix  

The court heard oral arguments on Wednesday, January 22, 2025. 

The case involved a fatal shooting of Ashtian Barnes by Officer Roberto Felix, Jr., the parents filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that the use of deadly force was unreasonable given that Barnes, even if attempting to flee, posed no imminent threat to the officer. The legal standard for evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force is typically assessed under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable force, as established in Graham v. Connor, which emphasizes the importance of considering the “totality of the circumstances.” However, four circuits have adopted a more restrictive “moment of the threat doctrine,” limiting the evaluation of an officer’s actions to the specific instant when a threat was perceived.

If courts were to favor the moment of the threat doctrine over the totality of the circumstances approach, it could severely limit the scope of Fourth Amendment protections. This shift would result in a narrow evaluation of police conduct, potentially exonerating officers for unreasonable use of force by focusing solely on the immediate moment of perceived danger, rather than considering the broader context leading up to the incident. Such a precedent could undermine accountability for police actions and diminish individuals’ rights, allowing for excessive use of force in situations where it is not warranted.

Becerra v. Braidwood Management, Inc. 

Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010, over 2,000 legal challenges have been filed against various provisions. The latest case centers on the ACA’s mandate that most private insurance plans cover recommended preventive services at no cost. This challenge was brought by Christian-owned businesses and six individuals in Texas, who argue that the law’s provision requiring expert committees and a federal agency to recommend covered preventive services is unconstitutional.

They also claim that the requirement to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention infringes on their religious freedoms.

The plaintiffs argue that the ACA’s preventive services mandate violates the Appointments Clause, the nondelegation doctrine, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This provision, in effect since 2010, ensures over 150 million Americans receive free access to evidence-based preventive services, like cancer screenings, contraception, and immunizations. If the courts side with the plaintiffs, this benefit could be eliminated, reducing access to crucial health services.

The court will hear oral arguments on Monday, April 21, 2025 

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission 

In Catholic Charities Bureau, the Supreme Court will decide on whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization a tax exemption after finding that it does not satisfy state’s criteria for religious behaviour.

The Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) is a social ministry group operating within the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin. The CCB provides care for the poor, elderly and disabled as part of its mission – regardless of their faith. Wisconsin law generally exempts non-profits operating for a religious purpose from the state’s unemployment compensation program. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently found that CCB’s services do not constitute “typical” religious activity and therefore the organization cannot take advantage of the state’s unemployment compensation program. The Court did so on the basis that CCB serves people regardless of their religion, and that it could qualify for the exemption only if it limited its hiring to Catholics.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide if this distinction is repugnant to the First Amendment religion clauses and determine whether CCB and other similar religious ministries can receive an exemption from this Wisconsin law.

The Court has yet to schedule oral argument in this case.