Subscribe!
Of Judges, Parental Rights, and Porn: SCOTUS Wraps 2025 Term
Announcement of SCOTUS opinions for Friday, June 27
On the last day of the Supreme Court decisions as they recess for the summer, 6 decisions were expected, with 5 coming down. Two of the decisions make this one of the most consequential days in SCOTUS history. Below each summary is a link to the document, if provided, to read the decision in its entirety.
The first decision was on the authority of district/federal judges to impact nationwide with their decisions.
Justice Barrett took on Justice Jackson in her written opinion, which was an historic take-down of what is usually a congenial dialogue, even when justices disagree:
Justice Barrett on Justice Jackson:
“She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch,” Barrett wrote. “If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.”
Barrett then went on to say that her opinion “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett continued.
Nobody “disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” she added, but the judicial branch “does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion in which she “cautioned” that the GOP administration’s stance against universal injunctions constitutes “a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior.” Jackson then characterizing the majority’s decision as an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
“When the Government says ‘do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,’ what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this,” Jackson wrote.
“I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” Jackson continued.
___
The second most impactful addresses parental authority in education and the ability for parents to be informed and opt out, if desired, of certain curriculum they do not want their children to be exposed to.
SCOTUS #2 Religious Liberty – Parental Opt-outs for LGBTQ in Schools
Ruling backs parents to opt out their children from the LGBTQ book dispute, with a 6-3 ruling. “Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” wrote conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the decision.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
___
The third had a ruing in the opposite majority, with certification of age required to view pornography online.
___
SCOTUS #6 – Louisiana’s congressional redistricting challenge:
Whether the newly drawn map, which increased Black‑majority House districts from one to two, violates Equal Protection by relying too heavily on race: Court will act in the future – The Court issued a brief order, stating that it would take up the case again in the upcoming term — no merits ruling, no map invalidation. Justice Thomas dissented, urging that the Court resolve the matter immediately, citing the constitutional and statutory mandate. Until new arguments are heard and a ruling made next term, the existing map (with two Black‑majority districts) remains in use.
___