US Supreme Court ending term with birthright, porn, voting rights
Link /
Archive
As the US Supreme Court winds down its term ahead of the summer break, there are a number of cases still to be decided.
The court is scheduled to issue opinions on Thursday and these are the major outstanding cases:
- Birthright citizenship -
The case is ostensibly about Donald Trump's bid to scrap birthright citizenship but it actually turns on whether federal judges have the right to issue nationwide blocks to presidential decrees.
It is perhaps the most significant of the remaining cases since it could have far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents.
Trump's executive order ending automatic citizenship for children born on American soil has been paused by district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that deemed it unconstitutional.
But the question before the Supreme Court is whether a single district court can freeze an executive branch move with a universal injunction.
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.
Whatever the nine justices decide, the actual question of whether Trump can legally end birthright citizenship is expected to be back in front of the top court before long.
- Porn site age verification -
The case -- Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton -- involves a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, part of a growing effort to limit access by minors to online sexual content.
Texas is one of nearly 20 states to institute such a requirement, which critics argue violates First Amendment free speech rights.
A district court sided with a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted access by adults to constitutionally protected content.
But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority.
- Students and LGBTQ-themed content -
This religious rights case examines whether parents have the right to pull their children from public school classes when books containing LGBTQ-related content are read or discussed.
The schools, in a Maryland county, had offered parents the chance to opt out of classes featuring books aimed at combating prejudice and discussing gender identity and homosexuality, but later retracted the option.
Parents are suing because the opt-outs were canceled. They say the schools' inclusive curriculum choices infringe on their Christian and Muslim faiths and First Amendment rights.
Court precedent has generally established that exposing students to ideas contrary to religion does not constitute coercion.
- Planned Parenthood funding -
South Carolina's Republican governor, Henry McMaster, issued an executive order in 2018 cutting off reimbursements to the two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state for services the reproductive health organization provided to low-income Americans under the government Medicaid program.
The Medicaid reimbursements were not for abortion-related services, but McMaster said providing any funding to Planned Parenthood amounts to a taxpayer "subsidy of abortion," which is banned in South Carolina for women who are more than six weeks pregnant.
Planned Parenthood, which provides a range of health services, filed suit against the state arguing that Medicaid patients have the right to receive care from any qualified provider.
An appeals court ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot be excluded from the state's Medicaid program and South Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court.
- Voting rights -
This case is a challenge by a group of white voters to a congressional map adopted last year by the state legislature of Louisiana creating a second Black majority district.
Black people make up one-third of the population of Louisiana, which has six congressional districts, and generally vote Democratic.
Opponents of the redrawn map argue that using race to design congressional maps is racial gerrymandering prohibited by the Constitution.
The eventual Supreme Court ruling could have an impact on whether Democrats or Republicans control the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections.
