Breaking Down 7 Major SCOTUS Rulings

What did the Supreme Court get right, what did it get wrong, and what it means for our basic rights going forward?

In these last two days the Supreme Court handed down seven significant rulings that will have wide reaching impacts on our rights. Here is your non-legalese analysis to help make sense of just what happened, how these rulings impact you, and what to expect going forward. Let’s Address This.

People protest outside the Supreme Court. [Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today]

1. Trump v. CASA

Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship

Trump v. CASA is the first major attempt by Donald Trump to end constitutionally guaranteed birthright citizenship. In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the United States are citizens per the 14th Amendment. In a January 20, 2025 Executive Order, Trump attempted to undo that Constitutional protection. A district court blocked this unconstitutional EO with nationwide effect, and Trump sued, arguing that a District Court cannot issue a nationwide injunction.

Today, the Supreme Court agreed in a 6-3 ideological vote, granting Trump’s request to narrow those injunctions. This ruling has devastating impacts as it also scales back restrictions against Trump’s other fascist policies. SCOTUS held that relief can only be granted to those individuals who sued and won, and cannot be extended to anyone not explicitly among those who sued without first making the lawsuit a class action lawsuit. In a snarky opinion Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history.”

I find that reasoning fascinating, given that women and Black people also weren’t allowed to vote for most of our Nation’s history, so by Barrett’s logic they shouldn’t be allowed to vote now either? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent, “The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.” She’s absolutely right.

Justice Sotomayor’s added in her dissent:

No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.”

What To Expect Going Forward: Now that the Trump regime has successfully limited the ability of his opponents to restrict his attacks on our rights, look for him to more aggressively pursue an end to birthright citizenship in this next year.

2. Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

Republican attempt to gut Obamacare falls short, again

The Affordable Care Act allows a federal task force to mandate that insurance companies cover preventive health services at no cost to patients. This was a key provision of the ACA that Republicans have repeatedly tried to gut, because it costs insurance companies money. Fortunately, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 that protects the task force, and maintains coverage requirements for preventative healthcare services. All of this could be resolved if we had guaranteed universal healthcare as a human right, as opposed to the exploitative HELL Corporations that I’ve written about before.

Notably, this is not the first time Republicans have tried to gut this provision. In addition to trying to pass legislation—that even some corrupt corporate Democrats signed on to—that would gut protections for pre-existing conditions, this is at least the fourth time that Republicans have taken their argument to SCOTUS, and been rejected. Notably, throughout this time Republicans have not actually offered any healthcare plan or solution—only attempts to deny and destroy healthcare.

What To Expect Going Forward: Republicans have already voted more than 100 times to repeal the ACA, and failed. All we can expect them to do now is vote yet again to repeal the ACA, as their billionaire donors fund them to.

3. FCC v. Consumers’ Research

Republican attempt to gut expanded comms access, fails

The Supreme Court upheld a critical program that helps low-income and rural communities stay connected to phone and internet services. Funded through nominal fees on our phone bills, this initiative—the Universal Service Fund—ensures millions of people have access to essential communication tools. It is an excellent idea that lifts up our economy and working class people. This is especially critical given that in rural parts of America, there are no financial or business incentives to build out broadband. The irony is that this case was brought by Republicans, and if they won, it would have hurt their own base the most.

Instead, in a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rejected a challenge aiming to dismantle the program. This marks a major victory for the FCC and for everyday Americans who rely on affordable broadband and phone service. It’s also a rare moment where the Court sided with protecting the public interest over undermining government agencies—an increasingly rare stance in this Court's track record. It is worth noting how, yet again, Republicans put their billionaire donors as a priority ahead of working class people—particularly their own base of voters.

What To Expect Going Forward: While this is a win, we cannot rest. Stay engaged on the state and local level to ensure your elected representatives know you support last mile broadband as a lifeline to millions of rural Americans.

4. Mahmoud v. Taylor

Do parents have a religious freedom right to excuse their children from LGBTQ+ themed storybooks in schools?

In a 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court held that yes, parents likely do have a constitutionally protected right to opt their children out of public school instruction that they see is in violation of their religious freedom. I state “likely” because the Court did not fully decide on the merits, but sent the case back to lower courts to be decided on the merits. The case stems from a Montgomery County, MD school district of 160,000 students. In 2022 the school year began with LGBTQ+ themed books for children included in general instruction.

When some parents complained, the school allowed an accommodation to have their children excused during such instruction. The school soon reversed, however, stating that the number of withdrawals from classrooms became “unworkable.” At that point a coalition of Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ethiopian Orthodox parents sued the district, arguing that the district would not work with them and that this violated their religious freedom rights.

The conservative majority ruled in favor of the parents:

The Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The petitioners [parents] should receive preliminary relief while this lawsuit proceeds. Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.

The three liberals dissented, holding:

The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools. The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and development.

What To Expect Going Forward: The decision pauses the school’s enforcement of certain lessons while the broader legal battle plays out. While this doesn’t settle the case, it signals early support from the Court for the families’ claim that their religious rights may have been violated.

5. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Do state laws requiring age verifications on pornographic websites violate free speech?

Texas and 24 other states have passed legislation require age verification requirements for people who visit pornographic websites. The Free Speech Coalition filed suit, arguing that this is a violation of First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 ideological majority:

H. B. 1181 simply requires adults to verify their age before they can access speech that is obscene to children. The statute advances the State’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content. And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.

The three liberal Justices dissented, arguing that while they agree with the principle purpose of HB 1181 to protect children from explicit material, and while they agree that children have no constitutional right to view explicit material, and while they agree the state of Texas has a compelling interest to ensure its children are not exposed to explicit material—they object to HB 1181 because it creates too heavy a burden on adults, and therefore also restricts adults from their free speech rights to view explicit material. Justices Brown, Kagan, and Sotomayor, thus, argue that a more refined approach is necessary to ensure children are protected while adults are not restricted.

What To Expect Going Forward: More states will likely enact legislation requiring age verification for people who visit pornographic websites.

6. Louisiana v. Callais

Supreme Court punts gerrymandering case to next session

This case addressed a challenge to Louisiana’s new Congressional maps. After Louisiana gerrymandered its maps to only allow one Black majority district, it was ordered to draw new districts to ensure accurate racial representation. In that revision, Louisiana included two Black majority districts. While that should have settled the matter, white people (literally) sued, arguing that now they felt discriminated against. Because as we know, white people have been historically and violently excluded from the electoral process in the United States and in the south in particular. (sarcasm font).

What To Expect Going Forward: The Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in this case, and punted it to next term. The conventional wisdom is they are undecided and want to ask more questions before making a decision.

7. Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Ruling that a person cannot sue South Carolina for cutting Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a South Carolina woman named Julie Edwards and Planned Parenthood cannot sue the state for removing the organization from its Medicaid program simply because it provides abortion care. SCOTUS bizarrely claimed that the Medicaid Act’s promise that patients can access care from “any qualified provider” isn’t specific enough to allow private lawsuits.

As a result, Edwards—who relied on Planned Parenthood for reproductive care—cannot challenge the state’s decision. This ruling will have national impact as every red state will now move to aggressively defund Planned Parenthood and all reproductive healthcare providers. This will literally be a death sentence for women.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, warning this ruling furthers the Court’s quiet dismantling of civil rights protections. As I wrote recently, states that restrict reproductive healthcare have the highest rate of infant and maternal mortality. I’ve also written about how South Carolina MAGA Republicans actually introduced legislation that would allow the death penalty for women who receive an abortion.

What To Expect Going Forward: This extremism will succeed only in harming women, particularly Black and brown women and low income women. A reminder once more that it was never about life for MAGAs, it was always about control of women.

Conclusion

In just two days, the Supreme Court has delivered a wave of rulings that reshape the legal landscape—and chip away at fundamental rights for hundreds of millions of Americans. From limiting birthright citizenship protections and denying legal pathways to reproductive care, to refusing to decide on voting access, the trend is clear: this Court’s conservative supermajority is accelerating a dangerous rollback of freedoms under the banner of “originalism.”

And while a few rulings offered temporary relief—like preserving the ACA’s preventive care provisions or keeping rural communities connected—these victories are exceptions, not the rule. The Court is increasingly signaling that corporate power, state control, and right-wing ideology will dictate who gets to exercise their rights, and who is left out.

Look for Trump and MAGA Republicans to build on their wins and continue to chip away at our civil rights. I would not be surprised if the next Supreme Court session repeals the protections on birthright citizenship, despite its centuries of precedent. In the meantime, you have my commitment to continue to share these updates, facts, and calls to action. If we are to protect democracy, bodily autonomy, and equal rights under the law, we must work together and organize like never before. Thank you to those who are subscribed, who share, and who engage with this advocacy. Stay loud. Keep pushing. The fight continues—and so must we.