The Docket: Significant Cases Before the SCOTUS in 2025
Three cases currently before the court will shape future transgender, free speech, and gun legislation.
By Roan Fair
The 2024-2025 Supreme Court term contains a broad range of cases including questions of immigration, limitations on judicial review, and environmental regulation. Among the 46 cases before the Court, three cases have immense political and cultural ramifications.
United States v. Skrmetti
In 2023, the state of Tennessee passed Senate Bill 1 (SB1) which “prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow ‘a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex’ or to treat ‘purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.’” With the passage of SB1, Tennessee joined 25 other states which have passed laws restricting gender affirming care for minors regardless of parental consent.
SB1 was quickly challenged by American Civil Liberties Union as a violation of the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The US Justice joined the plaintiffs against Tennessee AG Johnathan Skmetti on the grounds SB1 unfairly discriminates against transgender minors based on sex.
The Supreme Court heard arguments for the case in early December. The Court’s ruling will determine the legality of the 28 state laws restricting or banning gender affirming care for minors.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
The Supreme Court will hear arguments January 15th regarding a Texas law that requires websites or social media platforms “where more than one-third of the content is sexual material harmful to minors” to verify the age of all users. This legislation is intentionally broad to include “all salacious content—for example, sex-education videos and R-rated movies.”
Section 129 of the legislation requires these websites to publicize mental health warnings on all landing pages and advertisements. The warnings were specified by the law to include:
“Pornography is potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function.”
“Exposure to this content is associated with low self-esteem and body image, eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.”
“Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.”
Opponents have challenged the warnings, calling them a violation of First Amendment rights. They also claimed that the legislation enforces improper burdens on users by requiring age verification. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, has led the defense of the legislation.
The decision of the Supreme Court in this case will effectively determine whether legislation must provide a rational basis to “burden” the free speech of adults with the aim of protecting children.
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
The United Mexican States is suing US gun manufacturers in a landmark case which seeks to hold companies liable for the damage wrought by their products. The suit encompasses major gun manufacturers like Smith and Wesson, Beretta, Glock, Colt, and several other leaders in the weapons industry.
Mexico has argued that these major corporations have “actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico.”
The Supreme Court will decide whether the production and sale of firearms in the US 1) is the “proximate cause” of cartel’s violence in Mexico and 2) if the companies knowledge of the cartel’s use of their weapons constitutes “aiding and abetting” illegal gun trafficking.
The precedent set by this case will determine the amount of accountability assumed by gun manufacturers for the actions of gun users. If the manufacturers assume the responsibility of their users, the resulting civil lawsuits will financially cripple the industry.
Looking Forward
The cases described above target hot-button topics of modern culture. While debates about gender affirming care, free speech, and gun rights already dominate political discussions, the pending rulings of the Supreme Court will further ignite the dispute. No matter how the Court rules, one side of the aisle will decry their decision.
These cases each test the limits of the Constitution in a unique way. Banning treatment, speech regulation, and civil liability each have dangerous implications to public policy and should not be taken lightly.
The Court’s decision in these cases will by no means end these heated debates. The opinions of the Court, however, will shape how legislation is created in the future regardless of the outcomes.
About the Author
Roan Fair is a History and Political Science double major at Grove City College. On campus, he is the Senior Articles Editor for the Grove City College Journal of Law and Public Policy, serves as a student executive for the BEST Robotics Competition, a high school program hosted by the college, and is the Vice President for the college’s Federalist Society chapter. Additionally, Roan serves as a TA for Dr. Verbois in the political science department. His interests include early American history, political theory, and the legal field. After graduation, Roan plans on attending law school and pursuing a career in private practice.
READ MORE BY ROAN FAIR: Jurassic Park: A Cinematic Example of Bioethics
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Grove City College, the Institute for Faith and Freedom, or their affiliates.
Cover Image: Photo by Fine Photographics on Unsplash