A remarkable term for freedom

The 2024-2025 term of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ended June 26 with several significant opinions handed down by the highest court in the land. Most were solidly pro-family, pro-freedom outcomes, which American Family Association (AFA) is celebrating. Below is a rundown of this term’s most significant SCOTUS decisions.

United States v. Skrmetti

The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors questioning their gender, unless they were used for the purpose of addressing a congenital defect, premature puberty, disease, or physical injury. In other words, the law essentially banned sex-change operations and drugs for transgender children.

The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated on the basis of sex. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the High Court rejected that argument, holding instead that the law simply makes classifications based on age and medical use, which are permissible distinctions.

Significance: Allows all states to enact similar laws protecting children from the often-irreversible effects of sex-change surgery and dangerous drugs

Medina v. Planned Parenthood

The Court upheld South Carolina’s law prohibiting Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds. The opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch in another 6-3 decision. The holding hinged on whether private parties like Planned Parenthood could sue under the statute creating Medicaid. The majority ruled that the statute did not allow for private lawsuits.

Significance: Sets the stage for other states to similarly bar Planned Parenthood and others from receiving tax dollars to support abortion

Mahmoud v. Taylor

The High Court held that parents likely have the right to opt their elementary school children out of instruction and discussion of pro-LGBTQ books in the Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools. The curriculum in question required children as young as 3 or 4 years old to listen to or read books intentionally designed to “disrupt” children’s thinking about sex and gender.

The plaintiffs in the case included Muslims, Catholics, and an association called Kids First, which was formed “to advocate for the return of parental notice and opt-out rights” in schools. The Court split 6-3 over the opinion, which was written by religious freedom champion Justice Samuel Alito.

Significance: Reinvigorates the Free Exercise Clause and parental rights in a manner that will likely serve to protect religious children and families for generations to come.

Trump v. CASA

The Court ruled in another 6-3 decision that district courts did not have authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, like ones that have been issued repeatedly to curtail President Donald Trump’s executive orders. The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, analyzed the power of the courts throughout our nation’s history since passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789; it concluded that no such authority was ever intended or exercised until very recently.

Significance: Limits district courts from issuing universal injunctions