Objection: The Final Blow—SCOTUS Ends Its Term with Six Major Decisions

Today, the Supreme Court wrapped its term with six decisions—each one with massive implications for civil rights, bodily autonomy, and the balance of power in this country. Some were expected. Others shocked even the most seasoned legal analysts. All of them deserve your attention.

I’ve broken them down below—clearly, quickly, and with the stakes spelled out.

👀 Want a deeper dive? Watch the full video above.
☕ Like my work? You can become a paid subscriber or buy me a coffee here: ko-fi.com/elizaorlins

---

1. Trump v. CASA, Inc.
   SCOTUS narrows court power, sidesteps core constitutional issue

   In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration—not on the constitutionality of his executive order ending birthright citizenship, but on something far more technical and far-reaching: limiting the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

   The Court did not decide whether Trump's order—denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants—is constitutional. That fight continues. But it did rule that the lower courts’ nationwide blocks went too far. Going forward, courts can only issue injunctions that protect the specific plaintiffs before them—unless a class action is certified.

   Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, said universal injunctions overstep judicial authority and lack historical precedent. She emphasized that relief must be “complete” for the named plaintiffs, not everyone who might be affected.

   Justice Sotomayor dissented forcefully, warning that the ruling “renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only” for anyone not in a lawsuit. Justice Jackson added that the decision poses “an existential threat to the rule of law.”

   The executive order is paused for now, but only for the individual plaintiffs. More litigation will likely determine whether broader protections—or broader harm—will follow.

   This case wasn’t about just one immigration order. It was about who gets protected when the government acts unlawfully—and how limited the courts may now be in stopping it.

   
   📎 6–3, opinion by Barrett. Dissent by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

2. Kennedy v. Braidwood (HHS / ACA Preventive Care Case)
   Preventative Care under ACA survives—for now.
   

   In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected a major challenge to the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—sparing the Affordable Care Act’s no-cost preventive care requirements, including HIV prevention medication (PrEP), cancer screenings, and contraception.

   At issue: whether the task force members, who help decide which services insurers must cover, were “principal officers” who needed to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Court said no. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh held that the task force is supervised and controlled by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, making its members “inferior officers” under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

   The plaintiffs—a group of religious employers—had objected to covering PrEP, claiming it promotes behavior they oppose. They argued that the task force’s structure was unconstitutional and that its recommendations couldn’t be enforced.

   A district court initially agreed and tried to invalidate all ACA preventive care mandates. The Fifth Circuit scaled that back, limiting the relief to just the challengers. On Friday, the Supreme Court went further and reversed that decision, upholding the structure of the task force and the legality of the mandates.

   Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. He accused the Court of inventing a justification that hadn’t been tested in the lower courts and insisted that Congress never explicitly authorized this kind of appointment process.

   Why it matters:
   This was a quiet but crucial win for healthcare access. A different outcome could have gutted coverage for life-saving services millions rely on. The battle over religious objections and ACA mandates isn’t over—but this ruling keeps the system intact, at least for now.

   
   📎 6–3, opinion by Kavanaugh. Dissent by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

3. FCC v. Consumers’ Research
   A surprise win for digital equity...
   …and a rare moment of restraint from this Court. By a 6–3 vote, the justices upheld the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone and internet access for rural and low-income communities. The challengers argued that the program violated the nondelegation doctrine because Congress gave too much power to the FCC—and to a private nonprofit that helps administer the fund.

   Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan rejected that argument, holding that Congress gave the FCC clear standards to follow and retained sufficient oversight. The Court declined to revive the sweeping nondelegation theory that would have threatened countless federal programs.

   Justice Gorsuch dissented, warning that allowing agencies to decide how much money to raise and spend—without more explicit direction from Congress—defies the Constitution’s separation of powers.

   Why it matters:
   This case could have gutted federal programs that rely on agency expertise and flexibility. If the challengers had won, everything from student loans to environmental protections could have been on the chopping block. The Court’s decision to uphold the FCC’s authority avoids that doomsday scenario—for now.

   📎 6–3, opinion by Kagan. Dissent by Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito.

4. Mahmoud v. Taylor
   A new parental opt-out right—framed as religious freedom.

   
   In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland parents likely have a First Amendment right to opt their children out of elementary school lessons that include LGBTQ+ themes—framing it as a matter of religious freedom.

   The parents, who are Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox, challenged a Montgomery County school board policy that denied their request to excuse their children from storybook-based instruction involving LGBTQ+ characters. The Court reversed lower court rulings that had sided with the district.

   Writing for the majority, Justice Alito said the board’s refusal “substantially interferes with the religious development of their children” and burdens the parents’ constitutional right to direct that upbringing. The Court granted a preliminary injunction: for now, the school must notify the parents before using the contested books and allow opt-outs.

   Alito emphasized that this wasn’t about micromanaging curriculum, but about shielding children from what parents allege contradicts their faith. He pointed to past precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder, which allowed Amish parents to withdraw their children from school after 8th grade.

   In dissent, Justice Sotomayor—joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson—warned that the ruling “threatens the very essence of a public education.” She argued it could fracture the shared educational experience and elevate religious objections over civic inclusivity.

   Why it matters:
   This case sets a potentially sweeping precedent: if the logic holds, parents across the country may now cite religious beliefs to opt out of LGBTQ-inclusive curricula. It opens the door to broader efforts to exempt children from classroom discussions on gender, sexuality, and identity—especially in diverse public school districts.
   
   📎 6–3, opinion by Alito. Dissent by Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson.

5. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
   Porn access now comes with an ID check—and a blow to online privacy.

   
   In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages before granting access. The ruling could reshape how states regulate online content and raises new alarms about privacy and free expression.

   Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the law—H.B. 1181—passes “intermediate scrutiny,” the legal standard the Court said should apply. He emphasized that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing sexually explicit material and that requiring age verification is a reasonable way to meet that goal.

   Critics, including dissenting Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, argued that this approach places unconstitutional burdens on adults’ access to legal content and warned it could expand states’ ability to restrict all kinds of protected speech online.

   Why it matters:
   With 24 states passing similar laws, this ruling could green-light widespread regulations that go far beyond porn—impacting health, LGBTQ+ resources, and other sensitive content. It’s a significant recalibration of First Amendment protections in the digital age.

   
   📎 6–3, opinion by Thomas. Dissent by Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.

6. Louisiana v. Callais

   Instead of ruling on whether Louisiana’s congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander—or a long-overdue correction to decades of Black voter dilution—the Supreme Court just...punted.

   In a surprise move, the justices announced they’ll re-hear arguments next term, meaning a decision won’t come until 2026. No explanation. No schedule. Just an ominous delay.

   This case marks the latest chapter in a years-long fight over Louisiana’s maps. After a court struck down the state’s 2022 map for violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black votes, lawmakers enacted a new map with two majority-Black districts, as ordered.

   But then a different group of plaintiffs—self-described “non-African-American” voters—sued, claiming the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A lower court agreed and blocked the map from being used again.

   Now? Rep. Cleo Fields was elected under a map the courts have invalidated, and the justices appear to be preparing for a potentially sweeping ruling on what (if anything) remains of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

   Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the delay, warning that the Court has a responsibility to resolve these issues before elections—not after.

   What to watch:
   If the Court uses this case to gut Section 2 even further, the consequences for racial representation could be devastating—not just in Louisiana, but nationwide.

   📎 No majority ruling yet. Dissent from delay filed by Thomas.

If you found this breakdown helpful, please subscribe to Objection: Everything. I’m here to make sense of the rulings that shape our lives—and to fight for a system that works for everyone. None of my work is behind a paywall—but if you're able to become a paying subscriber, it helps me keep doing this work. I’m so grateful for your support. Let’s stay informed, outraged, and ready to act—together.