Upcoming SCOTUS Cases You Should Know About
The Supreme Court’s upcoming term, starting October 6, 2025, features several cases that could significantly impact American law and policy. These cases address complex issues, from free speech in professional settings to transgender rights in sports, voting rights, and criminal justice. Below, we summarize seven key cases, explaining their background, what each side hopes to achieve, and the potential consequences of the Court’s decisions.
Why These Cases Matter
These cases could reshape legal standards in areas like constitutional rights, state authority, and federal liability. For example, rulings on transgender sports participation may affect how schools and states handle inclusivity, while decisions on redistricting could influence electoral fairness. The outcomes may also spark public debate, as they touch on deeply personal and societal issues.
1. Chiles v. Salazar
Background
Chiles v. Salazar challenges Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), enacted in 2019, which prohibits licensed mental health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors. Conversion therapy aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, practices widely criticized by medical organizations but supported by some for religious or personal reasons. The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, argues that the law restricts her free speech by limiting her ability to counsel clients based on her beliefs. The case originated in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 10, 2025, to address whether the law regulates professional conduct or violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
Desired Results
Petitioner (Kaley Chiles): Chiles seeks to overturn the MCTL, arguing it infringes on her First Amendment rights by censoring her ability to engage in viewpoint-based conversations with clients. She emphasizes her role as a practicing Christian who believes in counseling aligned with her clients’ goals and her beliefs.
Respondents (Patty Salazar, et al.): The state of Colorado seeks to uphold the law, arguing it regulates professional conduct, not speech, to protect minors from practices deemed harmful by major medical organizations.
Potential Ramifications
A ruling in favor of Chiles could weaken state bans on conversion therapy, potentially allowing counselors to engage in such practices under free speech protections. Conversely, upholding the law could reinforce state authority to regulate professional conduct, particularly in mental health, and strengthen similar bans in over 20 states. The decision may also clarify the line between speech and conduct in professional settings, impacting how First Amendment rights are applied in regulated professions.
2. Hamm v. Smith
Background
Hamm v. Smith addresses the assessment of intellectual disability in death penalty cases, specifically how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores under Atkins v. Virginia, which prohibits executing intellectually disabled individuals. Joseph Clifton Smith, sentenced to death for murder, had his sentence vacated after a district court found his IQ could be as low as 69, considering the standard error of measurement for his scores (72–78). The case, originating from the 11th Circuit, was granted certiorari on June 6, 2025, to clarify how courts should consider cumulative IQ scores.
Desired Results
Petitioner (John Q. Hamm, Alabama Dept. of Corrections): Seeks to limit how multiple IQ scores are used in Atkins claims, potentially making it harder for defendants to prove intellectual disability.
Respondent (Joseph Clifton Smith): Seeks to have his intellectual disability recognized, potentially sparing him from execution.
Potential Ramifications
The ruling could refine the standards for proving intellectual disability in death penalty cases, affecting how courts interpret Atkins. A decision favoring Alabama could tighten criteria, potentially leading to fewer successful claims, while a ruling for Smith could broaden protections for defendants. This case may also influence how cumulative evidence is evaluated in other legal contexts.
3. Little v. Hecox
Background
Little v. Hecox challenges Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams based on biological sex. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete, argues the law violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The case, originating from the 9th Circuit, was granted certiorari on July 3, 2025, to determine whether such laws unconstitutionally discriminate.
Desired Results
Petitioners (Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho, et al.): Seek to uphold the law, arguing it ensures fairness and safety in women’s sports.
Respondents (Lindsay Hecox, et al.): Seek to strike down the law, arguing it discriminates against transgender athletes.
Potential Ramifications
A ruling for Idaho could uphold similar state laws, limiting transgender athletes’ participation in sports aligned with their gender identity. A decision for Hecox could invalidate such laws, promoting inclusivity but potentially raising concerns about competitive fairness. The case may also clarify equal protection standards for sex-based classifications.
4. Louisiana v. Callais
Background
Louisiana v. Callais involves Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map (Senate Bill 8), which created a second majority-Black district to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Plaintiffs argue that race predominated in the map’s design, violating the Equal Protection Clause. The case, originating from the Western District of Louisiana, was granted certiorari on November 4, 2024, and restored for reargument on June 27, 2025.
Desired Results
Appellant (Louisiana): Seeks to reverse the lower court’s ruling that S.B. 8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, arguing it complies with the VRA.
Appellees (Phillip Callais, et al.): Seek to affirm the ruling, arguing that race-based redistricting violates equal protection.
Potential Ramifications
The decision could clarify how states balance VRA compliance with equal protection principles, affecting redistricting nationwide. A ruling for Louisiana could uphold race-conscious districting, while a decision for Callais could limit such practices, impacting minority representation.
5. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan
Background
U.S. Postal Service v. Konan involves Lebene Konan, who alleges that USPS employees intentionally withheld her mail due to racial discrimination. Konan sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but the district court dismissed her claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the FTCA’s postal-matter exception does not apply to intentional acts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 21, 2025.
Desired Results
Petitioner (U.S. Postal Service): Seeks to maintain immunity, arguing that Konan’s claim does not fall under the FTCA’s “loss” or “miscarriage” provisions.
Respondent (Lebene Konan): Seeks to proceed with her lawsuit, arguing that intentional non-delivery is covered by the FTCA.
Potential Ramifications
The ruling could clarify the FTCA’s postal-matter exception, affecting USPS liability for intentional acts. A decision for Konan could open the door to similar lawsuits, while a ruling for the USPS could limit such claims.
6. West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Background
West Virginia v. B.P.J. challenges West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which bars transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports teams. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender girl, argues the law violates Title IX and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth Circuit found the law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on July 3, 2025.
Desired Results
Petitioners (West Virginia, et al.): Seek to uphold the law, arguing it protects fairness in women’s sports.
Respondent (B.P.J., by Heather Jackson): Seeks to strike down the law as discriminatory.
Potential Ramifications
The decision could shape Title IX and equal protection interpretations, affecting transgender sports participation nationwide. A ruling for West Virginia could uphold similar laws, while a decision for B.P.J. could promote inclusivity.
7. Villarreal v. Texas
Background
Villarreal v. Texas involves David Asa Villarreal, who was prohibited from discussing his testimony with his attorney during a 24-hour recess in his murder trial. Villarreal argues this violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The case, originating from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, was granted certiorari on April 7, 2025.
Desired Results
Petitioner (David Asa Villarreal): Seeks to overturn the prohibition, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
Respondent (Texas): Seeks to uphold the trial court’s decision, arguing the prohibition was permissible.
Potential Ramifications
The ruling could clarify defendants’ rights to confer with counsel during trial recesses, affecting trial procedures nationwide. A decision for Villarreal could strengthen Sixth Amendment protections, while a ruling for Texas could allow courts more discretion.
The 2025-2026 Supreme Court term will address critical issues with far-reaching implications. From free speech in counseling to transgender rights, voting fairness, and criminal justice, these cases could reshape legal standards and influence state and federal policies. As arguments unfold, the Court’s decisions will likely spark significant debate, reflecting the complex balance between individual rights and governmental authority.
Read More
In 2022, the Montgomery County Public School Board in Maryland introduced 13 "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks into its elementary curriculum, with 5 aimed at grades K-5. These books addressed themes of sexuality and gender identity. Initially, parents could opt their children out, but in March 2023, the Board eliminated this option, citing disruptions and stigma. Parents from diverse religious backgrounds, including Muslims, Catholics, and Ukrainian Orthodox, challenged the policy, arguing it violated their religious freedom by compelling exposure to ideas contrary to their beliefs. Lower courts denied their request for an injunction, leading to a Supreme Court appeal.