For most of us, a new year just began. But for the Supreme Court, the year is only partway through, since its annual term starts in October. The rest of it is set to be big, with decisions on major cases expected in the coming months related to birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in women’s sports, presidential power, and more. As we head into it, we’re bringing you up to speed on the most important cases you need to know about from the previous term, since they had big impacts — as the decisions ahead likely will — on our country.
TikTok Inc. v. Garland
In a unanimous decision last January that caught national attention because it had to do with free speech, national security and big tech, the Supreme Court upheld a law that had directed the app TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company ByteDance or shut down within nine months. The law addressed concerns that the Chinese government could use the app’s algorithm to shape U.S. opinion and get access to sensitive data from the 170 million American users. TikTok then went dark for less than 24 hours, but quickly reappeared after newly inaugurated President Donald Trump promised an executive order to delay the ban. He’s issued four additional extensions since then, the most recent of which is set to expire Jan. 23.
Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services
Early last June, all nine justices, conservative and liberal alike, again came together to issue a unanimous ruling that Marlean Ames, a straight woman, faced discrimination when she was demoted from her job and replaced by a less experienced gay man, and when she was previously passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian candidate. With this decision, the court overturned a standard previously used in several circuit courts that had mandated that people who are considered to be in the majority meet a higher threshold to prove workplace discrimination than people who are part of historically marginalized groups. While the court didn’t rule directly on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion practices or programs, its decision came at a time when the topic is getting lots of national attention.
United States v. Skrmetti
Less than two weeks later, SCOTUS delivered a hit to the trans rights movement, when the conservative majority ruled that a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand because it doesn’t violate the 14th amendment. The liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. Under the Tennessee law, medical providers cannot offer puberty blockers and hormones to transgender adolescents who do not identify with their sex assigned at birth. Tennessee is one of 27 states to have passed laws or policies limiting gender-affirming care for youth, 24 of which have Republican-controlled legislatures. Some legal experts worry this ruling opens up the possibility of other losses related to trans rights.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
At the end of June, conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined with liberal-wing justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to uphold the part of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) that compels health plans to include free preventive care measures, such as screenings for cancer, that are determined by a task force. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. It was the fourth challenge that the ACA has withstood at the country’s highest court. The case was brought by a Christian business and individuals who opposed the requirement to offer medications that help prevent the spread of HIV in at-risk populations. According to a Stanford study, 39 million Americans take advantage of at least some of the preventive services that the act guarantees.
Trump v. CASA Inc.
The same day the Obamacare provision survived, the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court limited the ability of lower-court judges to temporarily block executive branch policies while litigation is pending through a tool called nationwide injunctions. The ruling aligned with Trump’s ask to undo lower-court orders preventing his executive order banning birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and international visitors, but did not address the constitutionality of the actual restriction. The National Immigration Law Center wrote at the time that the case “raises more questions than answers.”
But answers are coming: SCOTUS will review the constitutionality of the executive order — as well as hear cases related to LGBTQ rights — before the end of the annual term, which usually means by June. Also keep an eye out for the nation’s highest court to weigh in on a number of Trump administration policies it’s so far only addressed through early procedural rulings. With all of that ahead, it’ll be a big year on the bench.