Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025
These are the five bigger cases the justices will issue opinions on, which could have nationwide implications.
The Supreme Court will issue a flurry of consequential decisions in the coming days and weeks before the justices adjourn for summer break.
The high court on Wednesday issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.
There are currently 27 states that have enacted similar laws to restrict gender-transition care, though some of those bans are tied up in legal challenges. Wednesday’s ruling means those laws will likely survive those legal challenges. The decision does not have any impact on states that don’t have laws banning gender-affirming care.
The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation’s first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers.
Rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites are some of the major issues the 6-3 conservative majority court has left to decide.
Here are some major cases SCOTUS will decide on in the coming weeks. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates.
Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case)
Case: Trump v. CASA
Not yet decided
Case argued: May 15, 2025
The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn’t been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump’s order.
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order.
What’s at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out.
If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward.
Parents’ religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools
Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 22, 2025
The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs.
The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents’ religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation.
What’s at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality.
Drawing Louisiana’s congressional maps is a balancing act
Case: Louisiana v. Callais
Not yet decided
Case argued: March 24, 2025
Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power
The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state’s six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state’s entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color.
A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district.
But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That’s why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state’s congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment.
What’s at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections.
Age verification for porn sites
Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Not yet decided
Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025
Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you
The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver’s license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults’ access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights.
What’s at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 2, 2025
The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a “qualified Medicaid provider” because the clinics provide abortion services.
The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings.
What’s at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.