The Supreme Court is approaching the end of its term with major rulings expected on firearms restrictions, transgender athletes, immigration policy, religious rights and other closely watched disputes.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court is nearing the end of a term expected to produce major decisions on firearms restrictions, transgender athletes, immigration, religious rights and several Trump administration policies that have drawn national attention.
The justices are expected to finish their nine-month term around the end of the month. While disputes involving President Donald Trump’s tariffs, immigration agenda and efforts to remove regulatory officials have dominated much of the court’s docket, several pending cases center on issues at the heart of the nation’s cultural and legal divides.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has moved U.S. law to the right in recent years. Its remaining decisions are expected to address the reach of the Second Amendment, the ability of states to bar transgender athletes from female sports teams and the limits of presidential authority in immigration policy.
Two firearms cases remain among the most closely watched. One challenges a federal law that bars users of illegal drugs from owning guns. Another concerns a Hawaii law restricting the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, including most businesses, unless the owner gives permission.
The Hawaii case could produce another major ruling on gun rights. During January arguments, the court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical of the state’s requirement that gun owners obtain a property owner’s “express authorization” before carrying a handgun onto private property open to the public. Four other states have similar laws.
Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law and a gun control advocate, said she expects Hawaii’s law to be rejected.
“It seems to me Hawaii is going to lose 6-3,” Lawrence said.
The decision also could give lower courts more guidance on how to apply the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision requires firearm restrictions to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation in order to survive Second Amendment review.
The second gun case involves a federal criminal statute that bars anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing firearms or ammunition. The provision is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which lists categories of people prohibited from possessing firearms, including felons and fugitives.
The challenge was brought by a Texas man who said he uses marijuana several times a week and was charged under the law. The same statute was used in 2023 charges against Hunter Biden, the son of then-President Joe Biden, who later pardoned him. The Trump administration is defending the federal restriction.
University of Chicago law professor Darrell Miller said the justices appeared doubtful about the drug-user provision but also wary of issuing a decision that could disrupt other parts of the broader federal firearms law, including restrictions on gun possession by felons.
“The court is deciding a drug case but they have one eye on the felony possession statute,” Miller said.
The court also is expected to rule on laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, including universities. The Trump administration is backing the state laws.
During January arguments, the conservative justices appeared likely to uphold the measures. The cases come as Trump and several states have pursued policies restricting the rights of transgender people. The Supreme Court last year allowed the Trump administration to enforce a ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military while a legal challenge continued.
Opinion polls indicate that most Americans oppose allowing transgender athletes to compete on sports teams that align with their gender identity, especially at the college level.
“There is vast consensus on this issue,” said William Bock, a sports law attorney at Kroger Gardis Regas who supports the Idaho and West Virginia laws. “Seventy to 80 percent of the public doesn’t understand why people are fighting about this.”
Sasha Buchert, an attorney with Lambda Legal who represents one of the plaintiffs challenging the laws, said she remained hopeful the court would strike them down. Buchert said arguments in the athlete cases “went much better” than arguments in a 2024 dispute over gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
In that case, the court’s conservatives formed a 6-3 majority to uphold Tennessee’s ban on such care.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a federal law banning workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. Since then, however, the justices have allowed several restrictions on transgender rights to take effect.
In March, the court blocked a series of California laws that could have limited the sharing of information with parents about the gender identity of transgender public school students without a child’s permission. The ruling favored Christian parents who challenged the protections.
The Trump administration also has pursued policies barring transgender people from using their gender identities on passports and preventing transgender federal workers from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
The court already decided one major LGBT rights case this term. In March, the justices ruled 8-1 against a Colorado law that barred psychotherapists from using “conversion” talk therapy intended to change an LGBT minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The court sided with a Christian licensed counselor, treating the law as a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against government restrictions on speech.
Immigration remains another major area awaiting decisions. The court is expected to rule in the coming weeks on Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship and to remove Temporary Protected Status from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
Arguments in those cases suggested Trump could lose on birthright citizenship, as he did in February on tariffs, but could prevail on Temporary Protected Status.
The justices also are weighing a religious rights case brought by a Rastafarian man who sued Louisiana prison officials after guards shaved his head, allegedly violating his religious beliefs. The case was filed under a federal law that protects incarcerated people from religious discrimination.
In a death penalty matter, the court in May left in place a judicial finding that an Alabama man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under Supreme Court precedent.
With the term nearing its close, the remaining decisions could further define the court’s approach to gun rights, transgender policy, immigration power and religious liberty in cases that carry significant legal and political consequences.
Original article
Comments