Open Thread: End of 2024-2025 Term, The Last Decisions
[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]
We are finally at the end of this torturous SCOTUS term with six decisions expected today.
The most important in my opinion is Trump v. CASA, regarding the reach of a lower court order with regard to Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.
Today’s decisions follow below and will be added to this post as released; any shadow docket decisions released today will follow in an update at the bottom of this post.
~ ~ ~
Trump v. CASA Inc. — Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision, with the court breaking along ideological lines. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent for her, Kagan, and Jackson; Jackson also wrote a dissent.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
This case centered on district court decisions in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship to persons born in the US depending on the status of their parents’ citizenship. SCOTUS in essence said district courts can only write orders narrowed to the case though birthright citizenship has been recognized since the passage of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management — Justice Kavanaugh delivered this 6-3 decision; Thomas wrote the dissent which Alito and Gorsuch joined.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf
This case arose from right-wing Christianist attacks on preventative health care under ACA like PrEP intended to prevent HIV infection; they claimed it infringed on their religious rights “by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” (Never mind any first responders who might be on PrEP to protect themselves from incidental exposure.) The attack focused on the Appointment Clause attempting to sever the relationship between subordinate officers empaneled by HHS and policy execution; the case has had enormous repercussions affecting other preventative care under ACA.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research — Justice Kagan has the 6-3 decision; Gorsuch filed the dissent which Thomas and Alito joined.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf
summary TK
Mahmoud v. Taylor— Justice Alito wrote the 6-3 decision; Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed the dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
summary TK
Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton — Justice Thomas has the 6-3 decision; Justice Kagan filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
summary TK – though I must add RTFN:
Held: H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of
adults. Pp. 5–36.
Fuck any Free Speech rights minors may have, or the school district’s rights to determine PUBLIC SCHOOL curriculum because of right-wing Christianist freaks.
Louisiana v. Callais — This case was rescheduled for re-argument. Justice Thomas disagrees with this rescheduling and issued a dissent documenting his rationale.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf
summary TK
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic — This case appears to have been pushed out to next week.
summary TK
I assume we’ll get any shadow docket cases next week as well, but I could be wrong; the last decisions weren’t all released today after all and I thought incorrectly they would be.
Trump v. Casa, about birthright citizenship. Amy Coney Barrett writes for the radical right majority that universal/nationwide injunctions, “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” An odd formulation. Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor dissent. Jackson also writes a second, separate dissent.
The case nominally dealt only with nationwide injunctions, not birthright citizenship. But the majority created a chaotic minefield, since cases will have to be decided individually across the country, which assures that it will repeatedly rehear the case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
https://www.rawstory.com/birthright-citizenship-2672446163/
I guess I should have tasked you with writing this post, EoH.
(Rawstory, though? Really?)
It’s a news aggregator, true, but you’ll note I included a cite for the case itself. :-)
The Guardian now has this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-scotus
Imagine the cases that individual radical right district court judges in Texas will now generate and feed up the chain.
Does this decision pertain to just this case, or all future national injunctions? Could it mean the injunctions against Joe Biden’s policies are null?
The law isn’t what has been taught in law schools for generations. Court orders now only bind individual plaintiffs, so every person must file suit to determine their individual citizenship.
Throw away your legal tomes, they are obsolete.
Over-exaggerating helps no one, thanks.
Sotomayor begs to differ:
Emphasis mine.
I’ll just put a link here to my mistakenly placed THREAD re: this decision:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/06/26/open-thread-scotus-decisions-end-of-term-ahead/#comment-1101670
But, I want to reiterate Mark Joseph Stern’s comment [see link for more]:
Also, as I noticed in the link, I think,
BARRETT mentions JACKSON 12 times in her majority Opinion.
Doesn’t seem normal. [?]
The decision atomizes the ability to enforce the constitutional order. It does more than limit nationwide injunctions, it requires each aggrieved individual to litigate separately. A massive burden. Congress, of course, could fix this, but only after it fixes itself.
So this should be challenged individually in all 50 states or at least all 12 appellate districts. I have zero doubt that there will be an inconsistent rulings (i.e. between the 9th and the 5th) and that will force SCOTUS to rule for all jurisdictions.
The silver lining is that this ruling wipes out the Amarillo judge’s abuse of injunctions, abetted by the 5th Circuit. It’s mighty thin, though because there will be real harm to innocents pending piecemeal address of grievances over extended periods of time.
I also wonder whether SCOTUS understands they’ll need to grant cert for everyone.
In the words of the late Jill Sobule, I think I’ll go get drunk and depressed.
Thank you for quoting Jill. She would be so, so saddened by this SCOTUS and what this administration has been doing to the rule of law, it’s citizens, and the role play happening on the world stage.
This case sickens me, and it’s based in Trump’s denigration of birthright citizenship:
It’s an abuse of this soldier’s son, it’s an abuse of their family, it’s yet another slap in the face to any active duty service person serving abroad who may be expecting a child.
Pro-life my ass. Pro-defense, my ass.
So let’s see, first they demonstrate their bigotries, and make a convincing case that women and/or minorities are not wanted in today’s US military. And that will create havoc up and down the ranks and the recruiting.
“US Supreme Court preserves key element of Obamacare preventive care”
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-supreme-court-expected-rule-obamacare-preventive-care-task-force-2025-06-27/
Another 6-3 decision, written by Kagan, upholds Congress’s authority to delegate power to the FCC, and its authority to delegate power further. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissent. Sad.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf
Gorsuch remembers his family history, with mom atop the EPA. Congress not only delegated to the EPA certain powers, but also required them to be used in certain specific ways with which Momma Gorsuch profoundly disagreed.
When she failed to do so, by withholding Superfund funds to clean up a site in southern CA in order to affect a political campaign, she was forced to resign.
Neil has not forgotten.
So a question that I can’t find an answer for and I see conflicting information on: does this mean that a district court’s opinion will affect only the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, or the entire district?
Let’s say a district rules in favor of birthright citizenship after a lawsuit brought by a certain plaintiff. Does it automatically apply to anybody in the district without requiring a lawsuit by each person?
Alito writes 6-3 decision in Mahmoud, the Maryland schools case, that allow parents to opt out of school’s LGBTQ+ program. Sotomayor writes dissent, with Kagan and Jackson joining.
Sotomayor, really angry, says this decision will set back public school education for decades, as she reads her dissent from the bench. The decision would not limit parental opt-outs to LGBTQ+ material.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
The Guardian’s take on the Mahmoud case.
Faith grounds, my ass. This is religious preference that mocks the notion of religiously neutral pubic schools. As commentators are saying, opt-outs would quickly become unmanageable, meaning school boards would simply not teach their students remotely contentious subject matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/supreme-court-lgbt-book-ban-case-ruling
It’s a faith that belongs only to conservatives, preaching that differences are Sins and people who are different in any way are Less Than.
Time get back to teaching that Earth is the center of the universe.
These fucking people.
“Faith.” Once again taken as a universally agreed-upon standard, comma, “Christian.”
It is never examined, even at the most rudimentary level beyond plaintiffs’ claim to membership in this or that “Christian” congregation, neither in this court nor any other. There is never any inquiry as to just what “Faith” means/dictates/sanctions to plaintiffs, how plaintiffs have come to an understanding of the meaning/dictates/sanctions which have led to their belief, and how any perceived aspersion or infringement of that belief by others who do not share it — serve to denigrate or de-legitimate plaintiff’s “Faith.”
Although six Justices consistently rule otherwise, this *cannot* be what Founders meant in the Establishment Clause.
I agree that conservatives often overly universalize “Christian” to be the default agreed-upon religious standard, and that their version of Christian is the only legitimate definition of the term.
That said, two of plaintiffs in this case are Muslim, two are conservative Roman Catholics, and the last is a group pushing for parents’ rights. The majority opinion did delve into what the faith of the plaintiffs is and how it motivated their requests of the school district and ultimately their decision to take them to court (see opinion pp. 11ff.)
You can criticize this decision on a lot of grounds, but saying that there was “never any inquiry” as to the plaintiffs’ faith is completely wrong.
Coalition v. Paxton, a “free speech” case, decision written by Thomas. Buckle up. The usual trio dissent.
Thomas upholds restrictive Texas law that requires websites to verify age when hosting sexually explicit material. Says that only “intermediate scrutiny” applies to this form of free speech, and that Texas’s law passes that test.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgt, 6-3, holds that HHS task force managers are inferior offices of the USG and serve at the discretion of the Sec’y of HHS.
Kavanaugh’s opinion. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf
Unusually, Court extends its business another week.
How far back does the birthright ruling reach? My grandfather immigrated through Ellis Island in 1915. He never learned a word of English. I have no idea if he ever got naturalized. If not, does that mean my father was never a citizen? And if my dad was never a citizen, how can I be? Supreme Court rulings can be applied retroactively, but who decides how far back? Who will decide any exceptions? What an f’ing mess.
Since I’m on a roll, we should also stop calling ourselves the United States of America. Instead, we should be the 50 States of America since your civil rights are now determined by where you live. A court ruling in one state no longer applies to other states. A ruling in Northern California will not apply in Southern California. The states are no longer united. Trump’s autocracy has finally arrived.
Feels like legal autarky.
However far back they decide removal of birthright citizenship should apply (and IMO it should never apply), it won’t apply to The Felon Guy and his third wife, because Reasons.
Following Nazi precedent, I would suggest the standard will be that if you have one grandparent who is not a citizen, then you are considered not a citizen as well.
You think Steven Miller et al. wouldn’t go for the very American “one drop” standard, beloved by American racists going back to 1619?
To state the obvious, if you think about it, one has 4 grandparents – two on your maternal side and two on your paternal side.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick observes:
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lslubm5hws27
June 27, 2025 at 10:33 AM
I wonder how “every single lower court judge who has been working like a dog to deal with the firehose of illegal orders coming out of this administration” feels about this.
I wonder that about all the people involved in the J6 and Stolen Documents case, as well.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lsgvx3fzxy22
June 25, 2025 at 11:19 AM [VIDEO] [Senator MURRAY at Hearing]
Is it legal to get sick?
NEW: Fast reaction to CASA Opinion
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lslzj74ohk2d
June 27, 2025 at 12:07 PM [Both comments accessible here]