SCOTUS 2024–25: How the Court Reshaped America This Term

Culture war victories, surprising alliances, and growing questions of legitimacy.

Culture–war victories for its conservative majority defined the Supreme Court’s 2024–25 term, rolling back protections for transgender youth, LGBTQ+ students, and the environment, while limiting the power of federal courts to stop unlawful policies.

But beneath the 6–3 rulings were cracks: moments of restraint, unlikely alliances, and dissenting voices that made clear the Court’s legitimacy — already fragile — is under growing strain.

Here’s what happened, what it means, and what comes next.

---

This Session’s 5 Most Notable Cases

Tennessee’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care: A Pandora’s Box

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, 6–3, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority. Framing the law as a neutral, age-based regulation of medicine, Roberts wrote it was a “reasonable exercise of state authority to safeguard children from irreversible medical interventions.”

Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, called the ruling “a moral panic disguised as law” and warned that it “abandons trans youth to suffering and stigma in the name of protecting them.” Advocates and medical groups decried the decision as a political intrusion into healthcare.

Consequences: Because the Court treated the law as a neutral age restriction, experts warn that vague statutes could inadvertently block medical care unrelated to gender dysphoria, such as treatments for hormonal disorders or cancer in minors.

We reported on this and other cases last month prior to the decisions being handed down. See that reporting here.

June Judgment Day: SCOTUS's Upcoming Rulings

Nationwide Injunctions Curtailed: Power Shift to the Executive

In United States v. Texas, the Court sharply limited federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Writing for the 6–3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh called such remedies “extraordinary and improper,” arguing courts should “resolve disputes between the parties before them, not dictate policy for the entire nation.”

Justice Kagan, dissenting, countered that “when rights are violated broadly, relief should reach broadly. Anything less leaves entire communities unprotected while the clock runs out.” Civil rights organizations warned that the ruling leaves vulnerable groups at the mercy of harmful policies while litigation crawls through the courts.

Consequences: By restricting nationwide injunctions without clarifying alternatives, harmful policies may remain in effect long enough to cause irreparable damage before the courts can fully address them.

For more context, see our original reporting on this case prior to the decision being handed down.

Note: This article is more than 45 days old and now lives in the archive. Consider becoming a paid subscriber to access all 750+ articles and exclusive perks.

SCOTUS is Considering Birthright Citizenship. Or Are They?

Age Verification for Online Pornography: Privacy at Risk

In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld Texas’s age-verification law for online pornography, 6–3, with Justice Thomas writing for the majority. “The state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from obscene material,” he wrote, framing the law as a commonsense safeguard.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the decision “grants the state carte blanche to peer into adults’ private lives under the pretense of protecting children.” Civil liberties groups denounced the ruling as an alarming erosion of online privacy, likely to chill lawful speech and empower surveillance.

Consequences: By endorsing invasive verification schemes, critics warn the Court has paved the way for broader censorship and monitoring of adults online.

See the linked article June Judgement Day (above) for our reporting prior to the decision.

Parental Opt-Out from LGBTQ+ Curriculum: Codifying Intolerance

In Parents United v. Montgomery County Schools, the Court sided 7–2 with parents who sought to exempt their children from classrooms discussing LGBTQ+ topics. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito declared that parents have a constitutional right “to guide the moral and religious upbringing of their children.”

Justice Jackson, dissenting, wrote: “Public schools exist to prepare children for citizenship in a diverse democracy — not to validate prejudice.” Education advocates fear the decision normalizes discrimination and undermines inclusive education.

Consequences: By prioritizing parental objections over inclusive curricula, the Court risks emboldening efforts to strip diversity education from public schools altogether.

EPA Authority Further Weakened: A Gift to Polluters

In United States v. Sierra Club, the Court continued its rollback of environmental protections, limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate waterways under the Clean Water Act. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the 6–3 majority, called the EPA’s rules an “impermissible expansion of federal power.”

Justice Kagan countered in dissent that the majority “abandons the text and purpose of our environmental laws in favor of ideological hostility to regulation.” Environmentalists and scientists have warned that the decision threatens both ecosystems and public health.

Consequences: By narrowing EPA authority without clear alternatives, the Court leaves wetlands, streams, and communities more vulnerable to pollution and corporate exploitation.

---

Surprises & Cracks in the Majority

Even in a term defined by aggressive conservative rulings, the Court showed it is not always a rigid 6–3 machine. About 42% of the Court’s decisions this term — roughly 23 of 56 signed opinions — were unanimous, according to SCOTUSBlog data. That’s roughly on par with or slightly higher than recent years, where unanimity has hovered between 35% and 45%.

These unanimous decisions often came in lower-profile or technical cases, but not exclusively. The Court spoke with one voice on issues ranging from procedural rules to the rights of terrorism victims (Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization) and religious accommodations in the workplace.

Surprising alliances also cropped up outside of unanimity. Justice Gorsuch sided with the liberals in a key tribal sovereignty case, and both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the liberal bloc to limit some deregulatory overreach, signaling concern for the Court’s fragile legitimacy.

These fissures did not alter the overall trajectory of the term, but they demonstrated that public scrutiny and thoughtful advocacy can still influence outcomes, and that even this Court has its limits.

---

The Shadow Docket: Justice in the Dark

Meanwhile, the Court quietly shaped policy through its shadow docket, issuing emergency rulings without full arguments or opinions. It allowed Trump-era immigration removals to resume and greenlit deportations of South Sudanese asylum seekers. Critics warn that the practice erodes transparency and accountability, enabling unreviewed policymaking that disproportionately harms marginalized communities.

---

Recusals & Ethics: An Institution Policing Itself

This term also underscored just how fragile and voluntary the Court’s ethical standards remain. In Baker v. Coates, five justices — Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson — recused themselves because they had book contracts with a publisher involved in the case, leaving the Court without enough justices to hear it.

However, in other cases, notably those involving January 6 and election disputes, Justices Thomas and Alito refused to step aside despite highly publicized conflicts. Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was directly involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, yet he continued to work on cases related to those events. Alito came under fire for flags flown at his homes — symbols embraced by Stop the Steal activists — yet he, too, declined to recuse.

These inconsistencies have only intensified calls for reform. In Congress, Democrats reintroduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which would establish a binding code of conduct, require more comprehensive financial disclosures, and create a process for reviewing recusals. Public support for such reforms remains strong, but the Court itself has resisted meaningful change.

As one liberal watchdog put it bluntly: “The highest court in the land still operates on the honor system, and the public pays the price when it fails.”

---

What’s Next: Culture Wars & Democracy on the Docket

Next term promises to be no less contentious. Among the most closely watched cases are challenges to bans on transgender athletes participating in girls’ and women’s sports in Idaho and West Virginia, the Court’s first direct examination of Title IX and gender identity in athletics.

The Court will also hear challenges to state bans on “conversion therapy” for minors, framing yet another battle between First Amendment claims and states’ duty to protect children. A major campaign finance case threatens to further weaken limits on how political parties and candidates coordinate spending, raising alarms about the floodgates of dark money opening even wider.

And a Voting Rights Act challenge out of Louisiana will test whether the Court is willing to allow racial gerrymandering that dilutes Black voting power, continuing its trend of narrowing protections for minority voters.

These cases fit squarely within the themes of the last term: culture-war issues, voting rights, and the legitimacy of public institutions. The question is whether the cracks revealed this year widen, or whether the majority doubles down on its ideological agenda.

---

The Stakes Remain High

This term made one thing clear: the Court’s conservative supermajority is committed to reshaping American law along ideological lines, but it’s not invincible. Dissenting voices, unexpected alliances, and mounting public scrutiny hint at vulnerabilities the public can and should press.

Progressives cannot afford to look away. The next term and the legitimacy of the Court itself are at stake.

Bibliography:

• Chung, Andrew. “U.S. Supreme Court Appears Inclined to Allow Parents to Opt Out of LGBT Storybooks.” Reuters, April 22, 2025.

• Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Sides with Trump in South Sudan Deportation Fight.” Reuters, July 3, 2025.

• Durkee, Alison. “Supreme Court Won’t Take Up Case Because Too Many Justices Recused Themselves.” Forbes, May 19, 2025.

• “By the Numbers.” SCOTUSblog, July 2025.

• “How the 2024–25 Term Brought Notable Wins for the Court’s Conservative Majority — and the Trump Administration.” SCOTUSblog, July 2, 2025.

• “Multiple Recusals — Finally — in Petition Involving Justices’ Book Publisher.” Fix the Court, May 2025.

• Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rules Against Challenge to Youth Transgender Care Ban.” Reuters, June 18, 2025.

• “US Supreme Court Dealt Blows to EPA and Environmental Protections.” Reuters, July 1, 2025.

• “US Supreme Court Backs Texas Online Porn Age-Check Law.” Reuters, June 27, 2025.

• “Transgender Rights Advocates Gird for More Fights After US Supreme Court Loss.” Reuters, June 19, 2025.

• “Trump Urges Supreme Court to Curtail Judges’ Ability to Issue Nationwide Injunctions.” Reuters, March 20, 2025.

• “Trump Wins as Supreme Court Curbs Judges, but May Yet Lose Birthright Citizenship Case.” Reuters, June 28, 2025.

• “Stat Pack 2025.” SCOTUSblog, June 27, 2025.

• “The 2024–2025 Supreme Court Term and the Roberts Court History.” Legalytics, July 2025.

• Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Supreme Court of the United States, 2025.

• Parents United v. Montgomery County Schools. Supreme Court of the United States, 2025.

• SCOTUSblog. “Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.” July 2025.

• Senate Judiciary Committee. Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025. Bill Text, June 2025.