Skip to content
EMERGENCY DOCKET

Court allows Trump administration to move forward in sending group of immigrants to South Sudan

By Amy Howe on July 3 at 6:36 pm

On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court paused an order by a federal judge preventing the government from deporting eight noncitizens to South Sudan. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the individuals will now be sent to that country “without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death.”

The Supreme Court

(Anthony Quintano via Flickr)

SCOTUS NEWS

Supreme Court agrees to hear cases on transgender athletes

By Amy Howe on July 3 at 12:44 pm

The Supreme Court on Thursday took up two cases concerning the constitutionality of banning transgender women and girls from participating on female sports teams. The cases will be decided in the court’s 2025-26 term.

TERM IN REVIEW

Skrmetti: The Supreme Court reaffirms that biology matters

By Erin Hawley on July 3 at 1:24 pm

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Skrmetti is both measured (it leaves some questions for another day) and bold (it reaffirms that biology matters). The court firmly rejected arguments made by the plaintiffs, including the Biden administration, that mere reference to sex triggers heightened scrutiny. The court also found that Tennessee’s law does not turn on sex but rather operates based on medical purpose. This suggests that a majority of the court believes some sex-based lines are constitutionally permissible, foreshadowing a potential win for states separating sports and bathrooms based on sex.

TERM IN REVIEW

The use and misuse of medicine in Skrmetti

By Craig Konnoth on July 3 at 1:23 pm

In United States v. Skrmetti, the court upheld Tennessee’s ban on pediatric genderaffirming care. In doing so, it avoided the statute’s plain language, misconstrued sex discrimination doctrine, and mischaracterized medical evidence.

Newsletter Sign Up

Receive email updates, legal news, and original reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch.

More news

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Friday, July 4

By Zachary Shemtob on July 4, 2025

Happy 4th of July! I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

TERM IN REVIEW

The Braidwood decision and HHS

By Bradley Joondeph on July 3, 2025

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term.

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the procedure used to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to their positions. In doing so, the court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health insurers cover a range of preventative healthcare services – those recommended by the task force – without any cost sharing from patients. The decision will surely have an immediate practical impact, tamping down the cost of important healthcare interventions for millions of Americans. In the longer term, the decision may also prove significant as a matter of constitutional doctrine, for in reaching its judgment, the court clarified some important points about the Constitution’s appointments clause and the power of the executive branch. 

Continue Reading
WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, July 3

By Zachary Shemtob on July 3, 2025

Yesterday, July 2, Amy and I were on the podcast Advisory Opinions. Please check out the episode here.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Trump administration urges the court to pause a ruling preventing it from firing Consumer Product Safety Commission members

By Amy Howe on July 2, 2025

Updated on July 2 at 5:25 pm

Although the Supreme Court officially began its summer recess last week, there are already signs that the next few months may not be particularly restful for the justices (or SCOTUSblog). On Wednesday morning, the Trump administration asked the court to temporarily pause a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland that ordered the reinstatement of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission whom President Donald Trump fired in May.

Continue Reading
TERM IN REVIEW

Trump v. CASA and the future of the universal injunction

By Mila Sohoni on July 2, 2025

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term.

The best that can be said for Trump v. CASA is that it could have been far worse. Its methodology and conclusions are myopic and wrong, and it is especially unwelcome during a period in which each passing day seems to bring new incursions by the executive branch upon individual rights, the separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law. The court held that federal courts may not give universal injunctions, which are orders that block the application of a law or an executive branch action to anyone who might be harmed by it, not just its application to the plaintiffs. But despite the court’s seemingly categorical rejection of the universal injunction, the ironic possibility exists that the decision will turn out to be, as Justice Samuel Alito put it, essentially “academic.”  

Continue Reading