This was originally published on the Alliance for Citizen Engagement (Center bias). It was written by Julia Shuttleworth.
With the Trump administration’s increased use of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, whereby the court can hear “emergency appeals” and rule without hearing oral arguments or issuing written decisions, the court has increasingly left a large portion of the docket to be decided in the final weeks of the term. On June 27th, the 2024-2025 term came to a close ahead of its summer recess, with the court handing down some of its most controversial and consequential decisions yet.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond
On May 22nd, the court came to a tied 4-4 vote barring public funding for the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma. Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Genter Drummond, initially brought suit against the state’s Virtual Charter School Board over their contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, arguing said contract violates the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who seemed most sympathetic to St. Isidore’s arguments during the hearings, argued that to invalidate the contract would in itself be discrimination against the school on the basis of its religious status. The court’s liberal bloc, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, focused on the case’s potential threat to the separation of church and state, as charter schools are “a creation and creature of the state.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, opening the door for a tied ruling. While she gave no explanation for her recusal, it is speculated she may’ve done so as a result of her long-standing friendship with one of St. Isidore’s advisors, Nicole Stelle Garnett. The court did not give a breakdown of which justices voted which way. In the case of a tied Supreme Court ruling, the ruling of the lower court (in this case, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma) stands. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in Drummond’s favor against the school. The door remains open, however, for the issue of public funding for religious charters to return to the court, should a similar case emerge that does not require recusal.
U.S. v. Skrmetti
On June 18th, the court voted 6-3 along partisan lines to uphold a Tennessee law preventing transgender minors from accessing gender affirming care, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers, even with parental permission. Though Tennessee’s law was initially passed in 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted an injunction, preventing the law from taking effect until now. The plaintiffs in the case included a group of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers. They argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as it constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court’s majority, wrote that the case did not satisfy the requirements for “heightened review” to determine whether the law violated the 14th Amendment. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, wrote that the court’s decision “does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.”
24 other states currently have laws on the books similar to Tennessee’s barring minors from accessing gender affirming care, which this ruling now gives the green light to go into effect. It is unclear what the ruling means for young patients currently in the process of receiving care.
Trump v. CASA Inc.
On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an Executive Order declaring that individuals born in the U.S. may not receive citizenship “(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary,” effectively ending Birthright Citizenship.
In the immediate aftermath, 22 states filed suit, alleging the order violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the 14th Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” District courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and granted an injunction, preventing the order from going into effect.
The Trump Administration argued that the injunctions granted by the lower courts should not apply nationwide, and should instead only affect the constitutional status of the order as is relevant to the plaintiffs (in this case, in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington).
The court ultimately decided 6-3 along partisan lines in favor of the Trump Administration, ruling that nationwide injunctions exceed the authority given to courts by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Justice Barrett authored the majority opinion, with Sotomayor authoring the dissent. The majority notably did not rule on whether or not Trump’s decision to end Birthright Citizenship was constitutional, and only addressed the matter of injunctions.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
In 2022, the school board in Montgomery County, Maryland approved several books to be added into the English curriculum that featured LGBTQ+ characters and storylines. A group of parents filed suit shortly after, claiming that by not allowing parents the option to “opt out” of allowing their children to read these books, the school district was violating their religious liberty rights under the First Amendment.
During the hearings, the court seemed poised to split along ideological lines. While the conservative justices echoed the religious liberty-based arguments of the parents, the liberal justices expressed concerns about the potential impact of allowing opt-outs. Justice Kagan expressed concern about whether the administrative burden associated with allowing opt-outs would cause schools to refrain from exposing any students from controversial content altogether. Justice Jackson stated,“If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. You don’t have to send your kid to that school.”
The court, once again splitting 6-3, ruled in favor of the parents, stating that the school district had to provide parents with an “opt-out,” citing the precedent set in 1972’s Wisconsin v. Yoder, which states that a practice which “substantially interferes with religious development” and “creates an undue burden” on religious exercise violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, while Justice Thomas concurred and Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent.
Within just a few days, a quick series of rulings in many ways has been able to alter the ways the court views civil rights, constitutional interpretation, and the power of the courts themselves. While some implications of the rulings remain unclear, there remains no question that it’s been another controversial and transformative year for the court.
