Rationally Based is a Supreme Court blog focused on the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, judicial philosophies, and their effects. We analyze landmark cases, legal trends, and the Court’s role in shaping law and society, keeping it clear and concise. Whether you’re a legal professional, law student, or just interested in the highest court, we provide insights into its impact on American jurisprudence. Explore our articles to stay informed on the Court’s decisions and their implications.
Loading articles...
Featured Articles
Latest Articles
SCOTUS Rules for Parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor: Balancing Religious Freedom and Inclusive Education
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.
Supreme Court Narrows Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., et al., addressing the scope of federal courts' authority to issue universal injunctions against Executive Order No. 14160, which seeks to redefine birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not resolve the Order’s constitutionality but significantly altered its implementation by limiting the reach of preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts.
Oral Argument Breakdown: US v. Skrmetti
The Supreme Court case United States v. Skrmetti, argued on December 4, 2024, addresses whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by banning gender-affirming medical treatments for minors when used to align with a gender identity inconsistent with their birth sex. The petitioners, including transgender minors and their families, argue that SB1 constitutes a sex-based classification, requiring intermediate scrutiny, and is not tailored to protect adolescent health. Tennessee, represented by J. Matthew Rice, contends that the law regulates based on medical purpose, not sex, and should be upheld under rational basis review due to health and safety concerns.
SCOTUS Rules for Plaintiff in “Reverse” Discrimination Case
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a pivotal case that clarifies the scope of protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit’s requirement for majority-group plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination is inconsistent with Title VII and its precedents. This decision ensures that all individuals, whether part of a majority or minority group, are equally protected from workplace discrimination, marking a significant step toward uniformity in employment law.
Barnes v. Felix: A Broader Lens for Police Excessive Force Claims
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Felix (2025) reshaped the framework for evaluating excessive force claims against law enforcement under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s narrow “moment-of-threat” rule, which confined the reasonableness inquiry to the precise instant an officer perceived a threat. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the “totality of the circumstances” standard governs, requiring courts to consider all relevant events leading up to the use of force. This ruling clarifies the scope of Fourth Amendment analysis and has significant implications for how excessive force cases are adjudicated.
Oral Argument Breakdown: Trump v. CASA, Inc.
In Trump v. CASA, Inc., argued on May 21, 2025, the justices grappled with the contentious issue of national (or universal) injunctions that block the enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. The case centers on Executive Order 14,160, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." This order aimed to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. Multiple district courts issued nationwide injunctions to halt the order’s enforcement, prompting the government to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Allows Military Transgender Ban
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to implement a Department of Defense policy banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, lifting a federal judge’s nationwide injunction. The unsigned order, issued without explanation, permits the policy to take effect as litigation continues in the 9th Circuit and potentially returns to the Supreme Court. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s liberal appointees, dissented, indicating they would have denied the government’s request, though they provided no reasoning.
Supreme Court Hears Case on Parental & Religious Rights on LGBTQ+ Content in Schools
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in, Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving Maryland parents seeking the right to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction incorporating LGBTQ+ themes. The parents, representing diverse religious backgrounds, argued that the Montgomery County Public Schools’ refusal to allow opt-outs violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Over nearly two-and-a-half hours, a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ position, questioning the school board’s rationale and the potential harm of granting opt-out accommodations.
Meet Ross J. Fodera, Esq.
Ross J. Fodera, Esq. is the founder of the Fodera Law Firm and specializes in small business legal services, including employment disputes, real estate transactions, corporate formation, contract disputes, and risk management. Since becoming an attorney Mr. Fodera has been involved in a number of six-figure settlement negotiations, EEOC proceedings, and real estate litigation. Mr. Fodera takes pride in providing affordable services and effectively communicating with clients so they understand every stage of their representation. Mr. Fodera is barred in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts.
In a significant policy shift, federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia have been directed to stop bringing felony charges against individuals solely for carrying rifles or shotguns. The new directive, confirmed by U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, stems from a Justice Department determination that the city's longstanding ban on the public carry of long guns is unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.