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.
Featured Articles
Latest Articles
Supreme Court Blocks Florida’s Immigration Law, Reinforcing Federal Authority
On July 9, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Florida’s request to enforce Senate Bill 4-C (SB 4-C), a state law that criminalizes the entry or presence of undocumented immigrants in Florida. The decision, issued in a brief, unsigned order with no recorded dissents, upholds a lower court’s injunction that has blocked the law since April 2025. This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal authority over immigration policy, a contentious issue with significant implications for immigrant communities, law enforcement, and national policy.
Supreme Court Clears Path for Trump’s Federal Workforce Reductions
On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with an executive order mandating significant reductions in the federal workforce. The decision, delivered in a brief unsigned opinion, temporarily stayed an injunction by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco, which had blocked the administration from implementing the order pending ongoing appeals.
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.
SCOTUS Upholds Tennessee Law Banning Gender Affirming Care for Minors
On June 18, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, a landmark case addressing the constitutionality of Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1). This law, enacted in 2023, prohibits gender-affirming medical treatments, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors when prescribed to treat gender dysphoria or to enable identification with a gender inconsistent with their sex assigned at birth. The case, which has drawn significant attention for its implications on transgender rights and healthcare access, was decided by a 6-3 vote, with the majority upholding the law.
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.
SCOTUS Allows Trump to Remove the Heads of Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court has ordered a stay that halts the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), following President Donald Trump's attempt to fire them without cause. These two agencies are pivotal to forming policy on worker’s rights in both the private and public sector, as such the heads of each agency will be extremely influential moving forward.
SCOTUS Split 4-4 Over Publicly Funded Religious Schools
On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (consolidated with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond), affirming the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling against publicly funding religious charter schools. This case has sparked debate over the intersection of religious freedom, public education, and constitutional 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.
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.