We now have all six Supreme Court opinions from today. I wanted to take a minute and break them all down for you in easy, understandable ways. I will be working around the clock today to provide you with coverage of the news. Please consider subscribing today to support my work and keep this free for all:
Here are the breakdowns:
Trump v. Casa, Inc. (Nationwide Injunctions)
The Supreme Court ruled that lower courts can't block Trump’s proposed end to birthright citizenship nationwide — only in the states that filed lawsuits against it.
This decision is a win for the Trump administration, allowing parts of the plan to move forward in many states, even if some challenges remain.
The court’s conservative justices were in the majority, arguing that judges shouldn’t overstep by issuing nationwide blocks; liberals strongly dissented.
Justice Barrett said courts should limit injunctions to what’s necessary, while Justice Jackson warned the ruling threatens the rule of law.
The legal challenge didn’t decide whether Trump’s policy is valid — just whether courts can block it nationwide.
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all born in the U.S., a view backed by legal scholars across the political spectrum, with rare exceptions like children of diplomats. This decision did not touch the merits of the case, but will allow the birthright citizenship executive order to take effect in some parts of the country for now.
The Supreme Court ruled that religious families likely have a First Amendment right to opt their children out of public school lessons involving LGBTQ topics.
The case centered on whether these families could avoid certain classroom content based on their religious beliefs.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court said the families are entitled to a preliminary injunction, meaning the school must pause enforcement of the lessons while the case continues.
Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, siding with the families on religious freedom grounds.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, disagreeing with the decision.
The ruling doesn't end the case but gives early legal support to the families’ claim of religious rights.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (Affordable Care Act Appointments)
The Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management that members of a health task force under the Affordable Care Act don't need to be appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
The task force helps decide which preventive health services insurance plans must cover.
In a 6–3 decision, Justice Kavanaugh said these members are “inferior officers” who can be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
This means the current structure of the task force is constitutional under the Appointments Clause.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch disagreed, arguing in dissent that the appointments process used is improper.
The ruling supports how the task force currently operates, preserving its role in shaping what preventive care is covered under the ACA.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (Texas Pornhub Age Verification)
The Supreme Court upheld Texas's law requiring porn websites to verify users' ages before granting access.
The case focused on whether the 5th Circuit used the correct legal standard to evaluate this law.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the 5th Circuit and ruled against the adult entertainment industry's trade group.
Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, supporting the age-verification requirement.
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, raising concerns about free speech and online access.
The ruling strengthens state authority to regulate access to adult content in the interest of protecting minors.
FCC v. Consumers' Research (Challenge to Subsidized Telephone/Internet for rural communities)
The Supreme Court upheld the funding structure of a federal program that helps provide phone and internet access to schools, libraries, rural areas, and low-income communities.
The program, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, is funded by telecom companies, which pass the cost on to customers.
A nonprofit called the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), created by the FCC, helps manage this fund.
The group Consumers’ Research challenged the program, claiming that Congress improperly gave too much power to the FCC and USAC — violating the nondelegation doctrine.
In a 6–3 decision written by Justice Kagan, the Court rejected this argument and said the current setup is constitutional.
Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that the power given to the FCC and USAC goes too far.
Louisiana v. Callais (Redistricting)
The Supreme Court ended the day with an unexpected announcement regarding a key redistricting case.
Louisiana v. Callais deals with a congressional map drawn by the Louisiana Legislature in 2024.
Instead of issuing a ruling, the Court said it will re-argue the case in its next term.
This means the justices want to hear more arguments before making a final decision.
The delay could impact how Louisiana’s congressional districts are drawn ahead of upcoming elections.
The announcement suggests the Court may be divided or wants more clarity on the legal questions involved.
Let me know if you have any questions.
— Aaron
Share this post