Demonstrators filled the steps of the Supreme Court on May 15 as President Donald Trump’s executive decisions and conservative policies took center stage. The justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, now face a term with high-stakes cases that could impact the future of birthright citizenship, transgender care for minors, and the influence of religion in public schools.
As reported by CNN, these cases reflect a growing national debate over federal power, individual rights, and the boundaries of presidential authority. With more than half the term’s argued cases still awaiting decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is poised to make rulings that will reverberate well beyond Washington.
Key legal battles involve Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and a challenge by parents seeking religious exemptions from LGBTQ+ books in schools. Each case has attracted intense political and public scrutiny.
President Trump’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is the first major appeal argued this term. The Justice Department contends that lower courts overreached by issuing nationwide injunctions blocking the president’s order. This has sparked a heated legal debate about the judiciary’s power to halt executive actions.
At the heart of this case is whether a president can overturn more than a century of precedent and the clear language of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Critics argue Trump’s move undermines the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Supporters believe executive power should not be stymied by broad judicial injunctions.
During oral arguments on May 15, both conservative and liberal justices showed hesitation about immediately allowing Trump’s policy to take effect. The outcome could redefine the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches, with implications that extend far beyond immigration policy.
Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors, known as US v. Skrmetti, is another major case before the court. Republican lawmakers argue that decisions about irreversible medical treatments should be reserved for adulthood and that states have the right to regulate medical care for minors. The law restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy, imposing civil penalties on doctors who violate it. Notably, surgeries are not an issue in this case.
Supporters of the ban say it protects children from making life-altering decisions at a young age. Opponents, including LGBTQ+ advocates and medical organizations, say it denies necessary medical treatment and singles out transgender youth for discrimination. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to side with Tennessee during December’s oral arguments.
Recent years have seen both the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers move to reverse political and legal gains made by transgender Americans. The outcome of this case is expected to set a national precedent on whether states can restrict such care for minors.
Parental rights have become a flashpoint in a case involving Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. Parents sued the district after officials refused to let them opt their children out of reading LGBTQ+ themed books, including “Prince & Knight,” as part of the English curriculum. The parents claim this violates their religious beliefs and constitutes government overreach.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, during arguments in late April, showed sympathy for the parents’ position. This continues a trend of expanding religious rights in recent years. The case arrives amid wider clashes between families and school districts over what content children are exposed to in public schools.
Critics of the parents’ lawsuit argue that public education should be inclusive and reflect a diversity of experiences. Supporters counter that parental rights and religious liberty should be protected against government mandates. The ruling could reshape the boundaries of religious accommodation in public education.
The Supreme Court is also considering significant cases about the power of federal agencies. One involves the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services mandate, which covers screenings and medications like PrEP at no cost to patients. The justices are evaluating who can appoint members of the board that decides what services must be covered, a decision that could affect access to care for millions.
Another case challenges the Universal Service Fund, a program that funds broadband and phone service in rural and low-income areas. A conservative group argues that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its taxing authority to the agency overseeing the fund. The court’s decision could limit or uphold how agencies operate without direct congressional approval.
Since Trump began his second term in January, the court has faced more than a dozen emergency appeals on policies including transgender military service, deportation protections for Venezuelans, and presidential control over independent agencies. While Trump has often criticized the courts, he has won most recent emergency rulings, showing the court’s willingness to support executive authority.
