It’s crunch time for the Supreme Court.
By early July, the justices are expected to wrap up their current term, which means that dozens of rulings will be released over the next five weeks.
Among the cases yet to be resolved are high-profile battles over medical treatment for transgender children, age-verification rules for porn sites and the rights of religious parents who send their kids to public schools.
The court will next release opinions on Thursday at 8 a.m. MDT. Several more decision days will be added to the calendar before June comes to a close.
Although a ruling for any unresolved case can come on any upcoming decision day, the most anticipated opinions may not be released until the last week of June or first week of July, since the Supreme Court often saves its highest-profile rulings for last.
Here are five of the biggest issues the court will weigh in on before entering its summer recess.
Medical treatment for transgender minors
Case name: U.S. v. Skrmetti
Key question(s): The justices are weighing whether Tennessee’s restrictions on certain gender-related treatments, like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender children and teens violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause by making access to the treatments contingent on a young person’s sex at birth. The court is also considering whether the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals used the right legal standard when evaluating the case.
Lower court ruling: The doctor, parents and transgender children who challenged Tennessee’s law secured a partial victory at the district court level when the court ruled that transgender young people should have access to treatments that remained available to their non-transgender peers. But then the 6th Circuit overturned that decision on appeal, ruling that the policy does not promote sex discrimination.
Oral argument date: Dec. 4, 2024
Oral argument observations: In addition to debating Tennessee’s law and the equal protection clause during oral arguments, the justices discussed research related to gender transitioning. More conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether treatments like hormone therapy are safe for transgender minors, arguing that the science seems to be unsettled, as the Deseret News reported at the time.
What’s at stake?: The Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti could affect around two dozen other states, which similarly regulate gender-related treatments.
Age verification on porn sites
Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Key question(s): The overarching question in the case is whether or not a Texas law aimed at keeping young people from accessing porn sites violates the First Amendment rights of the sites’ adult users. However, the Supreme Court ruling may focus on a narrower question about what legal standard should be used to evaluate challenged age-verification laws.
Lower court ruling: Those challenging Texas’ law won at the district court level, but then the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned part of that decision and allowed the age-verification rules to take effect. Judges who have ruled against the law say it violates free speech protections.
Oral argument date: Jan. 15, 2025
Oral argument takeaways: A majority of justices seemed interested in sending the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under a different legal standard. Many also noted that Supreme Court precedent on pornography regulation is difficult to apply to the modern context.
What’s at stake?: As in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the court’s ruling could force changes to — or at least reconsideration of — similar laws in around 20 other states.
Reverse discrimination
Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
Key question(s): Should members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, have to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging employment discrimination?
Lower court ruling: Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, accused her employer of discrimination in a 2020 lawsuit. She lost at a preliminary stage in front of multiple courts, which said that she wouldn’t be able to meet the higher burden of proof required for her case to move forward.
Oral argument date: Feb. 26, 2025
Oral argument takeaways: Most of the justices seemed to sympathize with Ames and want to make it clear that job discrimination claims from members of majority groups should be assessed the same way as claims from members of minority groups.
What’s at stake?: A ruling for Ames could further complicate the debate over Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or DEI, programs that have ramped up since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January.
Religious freedom protections in public schools
Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor
Key question(s): Does the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland need to allow religious parents to opt their kids out of reading storybooks that explore LGBTQ issues like gender identity?
Lower court ruling: At the district and circuit levels, the school board successfully defended its decision to stop offering opt-outs from its inclusive storybook program. The courts said students aren’t being coerced into changing their beliefs, so the program doesn’t violate the First Amendment’s religious exercise protections.
Oral argument date: April 22, 2025
Oral argument takeaways: The justices got into the weeds during oral arguments and actually debated the moral message conveyed by one of the books being used in Montgomery County schools, as the Deseret News previously reported. Some also raised concerns that a ruling for the parents would create curriculum chaos nationwide.
What’s at stake?: That depends on who you ask. The parents’ supporters believe restoring the opt-out option would bring Montgomery County schools in line with schools across the country. Their opponents say it would lead to a surge in parental interference with public school teachers.
Birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions
Case name: Trump v. CASA
Key question(s): Although the case stems from Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, the question in front of the Supreme Court is not about that order’s content, but, instead, about when lower courts can hand down universal injunctions that block implementation of a policy nationwide.
Lower court ruling: Multiple lower courts have issued universal injunctions that have prevented the birthright citizenship order from taking effect. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of those injunctions by making them apply only to the states, cities and people involved in the legal battle.
Oral arguments date: May 15, 2025
Oral argument observations: Several justices took issue with the U.S. solicitor general’s claims during oral arguments, including some who have expressed frustration with nationwide injunctions in the past. It seemed like the court might release a ruling that generally discouraged nationwide injunctions, but allowed the ones blocking the birthright citizenship order to remain in place, as the Deseret News previously reported.
What’s at stake?: All future administrations have a stake in the case, since leaders from both parties have come to see universal injunctions as roadblocks standing in the way of their policy agendas. But those same leaders are often grateful for injunctions when their party is not in power.