Latest News

Top cases heard by the US Supreme Court in 2025-2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to decide a number of cases during its upcoming term that begins in October. These cases include issues like transgender rights; campaign finance laws; gay "conversion therapies"; crisis pregnancy centers; religious rights and the death penalty. The following are some of the cases that will be heard during the upcoming court term. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases involving challenges against President Donald Trump's policy.

TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION On July 3, the court decided to hear Idaho and West Virginia's bid to enforce state laws that prohibit transgender athletes in female sports teams of public schools. This is another civil rights challenge against Republican-backed restrictions for transgender individuals. Idaho and West Virginia appealed lower court decisions siding with transgender plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued the laws discriminate based upon sex or transgender status, in violation of U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee and Title IX civil right statute which prohibits sex discrimination in schools. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE On June 30, the court agreed to hear a Republican challenge, based on free speech grounds, to a federal campaign finance provision that limits spending by parties in coordination and cooperation with candidates for office. The case involved Vice President JDVance. Vance and two Republican committees, both of whom were running for U.S. Senate at the time the litigation started, appealed the ruling by a lower court that affirmed restrictions on how much money political parties can spend in campaigns, with the input of candidates they support. The question is whether the federal restrictions on coordinated campaign expenditures violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. The arguments have not been scheduled.

The Justices agreed on March 10, to hear the challenge of a Christian therapist on free speech grounds against a Democratic-backed Colorado Law banning "conversion therapies" that are intended to change a child's sexual orientation, or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, appealed the decision of a lower court that rejected her claim that a 2019 statute violated the First Amendment by censoring her communications with her clients. The state claims it regulates professional conduct and not speech. Chiles, a Colorado-based Christian therapist who believes that "people flourish when they live in accordance with God's plan including their biological gender," according to court documents. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court agreed on June 16 to reconsider a New Jersey operator's attempt to stop the Democratic-led attorney general of the state from investigating whether a Christian faith-based organisation deceived the women into thinking it offered abortions. First Choice Women's Resource Centers has appealed the ruling of a lower court that said the organization had to contest the attorney general's summons in state court prior to bringing a lawsuit against it. Crisis pregnancy centers offer services to pregnant women in order to prevent them from getting an abortion. Abortion rights activists have called the centers deceptive because they do not publicize their anti-abortion position. First Choice argues that it has the right to take its case to federal court, because it alleges a violation of First Amendment rights for free speech and freedom of association. The arguments have not been scheduled.

RASTAFARIAN INMATES The Justices took up on June 23, a Rastafarian's lawsuit against state prison officials in Louisiana for holding him down and shaving him bald, in violation of their religious beliefs. Damon Landor's religion dictates that he let his hair grow. He appealed the decision of a lower court to dismiss his lawsuit filed under a U.S. statute protecting against religious infringements by state and local government. Landor was not allowed to sue officials individually for damages under this law, according to the lower court. The law in question protects religious rights for people who are confined to institutions like prisons and jails. The arguments have not been scheduled.

DEATH ROW INMATES The court decided on June 6 to hear the appeal of Alabama officials against a ruling that an Alabama man convicted of murder in 1997 was intellectually disabled. This finding spared him the death penalty, but the Republican-governed State is still pushing to execute him. According to the lower court's analysis of Joseph Clifton Smith's IQ scores and expert testimony, he was deemed intellectually disabled. According to a Supreme Court precedent from 2002, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unjust punishment is violated by executing a person with intellectual disabilities. The arguments have not been scheduled.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRECTS The court will hear arguments for a third time in a dispute involving a Louisiana election map that increased the number of U.S. Congress districts with a majority of Black people in the state. Justices heard arguments on March 24, but ordered on June 27 that the matter be debated again. State officials and civil right groups appealed an earlier court ruling which found that the map of Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives district - now with two districts that are majority Black, instead of one - violated equal protection guarantees in the Constitution. The arguments have not been scheduled.

COX COMMUNICATIONS PIRACY VERDICT On June 30, the justices took up a dispute over copyright between Cox Communications, an internet service provider, and a group music labels. This was in response to a court decision that had thrown out a $1 Billion jury verdict against Cox Communications for alleged music piracy by Cox users. Cox Communications appealed the lower court decision that it was still responsible for copyright violations by its customers despite the ruling overturning the verdict. Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group are among the labels. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CHEVRON and EXXON COASTAL POLLLUTION On June 16, the court agreed to hear an application by Chevron and Exxon Mobil, as well as other oil and gas firms to move lawsuits filed by two Louisiana municipalities accusing them of damaging the state's coastline over a decade-long period to federal court. The companies appealed the lower court's decision rejecting their claim that the lawsuits should be heard in federal court, because the parishes Plaquemines & Cameron were suing for oil production undertaken during World War II to fulfill U.S. Government refinery contracts. Federal court is a more friendly venue for such litigation. Arguments have not been scheduled.

ENBRIDGE PIPELLINE DISPUTE On June 30, the justices decided to hear Enbridge’s request to change the venue of Michigan’s lawsuit to force the Canadian pipe-line operator to cease operating a line beneath the Straits of Mackinac (waterways connecting two of the Great Lakes) due to environmental concerns. Enbridge appealed the lower court's decision rejecting its request to transfer the case from state to federal court. Federal court is considered to be more favourable to defendants. The arguments have not been scheduled.

(source: Reuters)