Supreme Court Closes Its Session With Blockbuster Cases

The US Supreme Court ended its term on Friday, June 27, releasing five major decisions before leaving for summer break. All five rulings came down 6-3, but the justices didn’t always pick the same sides. While these cases all decide issues with immediate effects, they could also potentially spark numerous other changes in the way the law is understood in the next few years.

Trump v. CASA

President Donald Trump signed and executive order on January 20, Inauguration Day and his first day back in office, that would change birthright citizenship. Traditionally, anyone who is born in the US is an American citizen – regardless of whether his or her parents were citizens, legal residents, or illegal aliens. The president’s order, however, would have changed the rule so that in order to be born a citizen, at least one parent must also be a citizen.

A federal district court judge blocked this order with what’s called a universal injunction. As such, President Trump was legally unable to have his order go into effect. In the 6-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court held that blocking a presidential order across the whole nation was simply more power than the Constitution gives to a district judge. As such, district courts can no longer issue universal injunctions, but must only rule on the case as it applies to the plaintiffs (the ones suing) and the defendants (those being sued) specifically.

It isn’t a ruling on the order to end birthright citizenship itself, but it’s still a major win for President Trump and the executive branch in general.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

The next 6-3 decision came in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, a case that challenged the existence of a task force created by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In short, groups with religious objections to using taxpayer funds to pay for HIV preventative medicines sued HHS for creating a task force that recommended preventative services insurance companies must cover without charging patients extra.

The Supreme Court majority ruled that the formation of the task force was legitimate. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, however, dissented. They argued that the majority mistakenly relied on a theory the government made up during the case.

FCC v. Consumer’s Research

FCC v. Consumer’s Research came next, another 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority. Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.

Did Congress violate the non-delegation doctrine by allowing the FCC to decide for itself how much to tax internet providers? The Court held that, in fact, they did not.

Mahmoud v. Taylor

In yet another 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that parents have a right to be informed whenever their children are being instructed in public schools using LGBTQ+ materials – and that they can choose not to have their kids involved.

“We have long recognized,” Alito, who authored the majority opinion for Mahmoud v. Taylor, wrote, “the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

The fifth and final 6-3 decision released Friday was in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Texas has passed a law aimed at blocking minors from accessing inappropriate adult content on the internet. To accomplish this goal, adult websites must require users to submit age verification to prove they’re old enough to visit the site.

The Free Speech Coalition argued that, even though some content on the internet is not appropriate for children, forcing adults to go through age verification effectively limits their free speech rights to only what kids are allowed to see. This, they argued, is unconstitutional, and it could lead to other limits being placed on the free speech rights of adults.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion. He and the rest of the majority affirmed the lower court’s ruling, which supported the Texas law. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

1. The US Supreme Court ruled that district court judges can’t issue nationwide, universal injunctions that completely block the executive branch.
2. The Court ruled that parents have the right to know if their children are being taught using LGBTQ+ books, and to opt out if they so choose.
3. Texas now requires age verification to enter adult websites. This law was challenged on a free speech basis, but the Court ruled in favor of protecting children from inappropriate content.