The Supreme Court recently upped the stakes for its next term by further calling into question the vitality of the Voting Rights Act.
The crucial future of voting rights is just one of the important issues set for resolution in the term that starts in October, with decisions expected by July. Though the justices have still been ruling on the so-called shadow docket over the summer, and they’ll add more cases to the docket on a rolling basis, here are five big ones already set for resolution this coming term.
While we never know exactly how the justices will rule until the opinions come out, they have laid the groundwork for another set of conservative victories.
Voting rights
Louisiana v. Callais was supposed to be decided last term. But the justices failed to rule and instead pushed it to the coming term. Notably, they added significance to an already significant redistricting appeal when they issued an order last week that set the stage for additional gutting of the landmark 1965 law on voting rights.
Transgender sports
One of the biggest cases this past term was United States v. Skrmetti, in which the Republican-appointed majority upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Fresh off that ruling, the justices agreed to consider whether transgender girls and women can participate in sports on girls’ and women’s teams. That sets up the possibility of two rulings against transgender people two terms in a row.
Campaign finance
Yet another hot-button issue that could further conservative interests is campaign finance. The justices agreed to hear an appeal from Republicans challenging campaign finance restrictions. The appeal came from the National Republican Senatorial Committee and others affiliated with the GOP, with support from the Trump administration.
Conversion therapy
The campaign finance case isn’t the only appeal claiming First Amendment interests that align with conservative goals. Challenging Colorado’s ban on so-called conversion therapy — attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity — a Christian counselor brought the following legal issue to the justices, which they agreed to consider: “Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.”
Abortion
The court that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 is also hearing an abortion-related appeal. It’s not directly about access to the procedure, but rather is another First Amendment challenge.
It stems from a state investigation of an anti-abortion group over potentially misleading donors and potential clients about the health services it provides. The group wants to avoid turning over donor information and tried to pursue its claim in federal court. The justices agreed to consider whether the group may do so or whether the matter must proceed in state court. A through line between this and other appeals this coming term, on top of the First Amendment connection, is that the case is being brought by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which is also behind the transgender sports and conversion therapy appeals. The group has found success at the broadly like-minded Roberts Court. Given that synergy, ADF’s success this coming term can provide a useful barometer of where the court is at. That the justices agreed to review these appeals in the first place is a decent indication. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
