Key Takeaways From The 2024 2025 U S Supreme Court Term Implications

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions of interest to state and territorial governments during its 2024-2025 term. The Court handed down approximately 67 rulings, along with several additional orders addressed through its emergency docket. Among the decided cases, thirteen originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit— the highest number from any circuit this term—followed by seven from the Fourth Circuit. Six cases originated from state and district courts.

The merits docket this term featured a range of issues particularly relevant to states and territories. Key issues addressed included the constitutionality of state age-verification laws for minors accessing pornographic content online, restrictions on youth access to gender-affirming care, the scope of state authority in environmental regulation, the inclusion of... This term also saw a notable increase in cases brought before the Court’s emergency docket, commonly known as the shadow docket. From October 7, 2024, to August 9, 2025, the Court received over 110 emergency applications. While the majority of these applications involved death penalty matters or refiling requests, approximately 43 cases raised substantive issues warranting immediate relief. These included critical questions on separation of powers—such as challenges to Courts’ authority to limit executive action—administrative law disputes, First Amendment conflicts, and federalism issues concerning the balance between state and federal authority.

Many high-profile cases focused on presidential powers related to immigration, administrative agencies, federal funding, and the use of universal injunctions. Key decisions impacting state and territorial governments and other major topics from the term are noted below. A full list of decisions can be found here. A list of emergency docket applications can be found here. NGA holds monthly briefings for Governors’ legal counsel. Please reach out to Lauren Dedon (Ldedon@nga.org) for additional information.

The past year was a significant one for the U.S. Supreme Court, with notable decisions related to the First Amendment, nationwide injunctions, and the 14th Amendment. The court concluded its October Term 2024 on June 30, 2025 with Goldey v. Fields, a per curiam decision regarding Eighth Amendment protections for inmates making excessive force claims against prison officials. In the preceding six months, a series of major decisions defined the term that began on Oct. 7, 2024.

In Trump v. CASA the court considered whether lower federal courts may issue universal injunctions blocking executive actions nationwide. The case arose after President Donald Trump issued an executive order redefining birthright citizenship, which a federal district court enjoined on a nationwide basis. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the district court exceeded the authority Congress has granted federal courts by issuing a universal injunction. The court did not address the constitutionality of the executive order under the 14th Amendment, an issue that remains pending. In United States v.

Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee’s state law prohibiting medical professionals from providing hormone therapy or puberty-delaying drugs to transgender minors did not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause . Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion rejected arguments that the state law discriminated on the basis of sex and transgender status. The Supreme Court also ruled in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act when issuing general permitting requirements. This case involved the EPA’s use of “end-result” permit requirements that compel a permittee to generally regulate the quality of the water in the body of water into which it discharges pollutants. A divided court said that the EPA, and not the permittee, had the responsibility to determine specific steps a permittee must meet water quality standards.

The Supreme Court’s 2024-25 term has garnered significant attention for its exploration of pivotal legal questions that are likely to impact future jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Constitution. A detailed review of these cases was recently organized by the National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The event, featuring a panel with distinguished legal experts such as Sarah Isgur from The Dispatch and Jonathan Adler from William & Mary Law School, provided a comprehensive analysis of the term’s most noteworthy... The discussions not only highlighted the immediate legal implications but also considered the broader constitutional debates they provoke. Among the significant cases reviewed was a major decision involving executive power, reflecting the ongoing scrutiny of the relationship between the judiciary and executive branches under the Roberts Court. This case, and others like it, continue to shape the contours of the separation of powers and the role of the federal government in citizens’ lives.

The event went beyond case-specific discussions, venturing into the territory of media influence on public perceptions of the court. This was a reminder of how media coverage can shape – or skew – public understanding of complex legal issues, underscoring the responsibility carried by both legal professionals and journalists in reporting and contextualizing... For those unable to attend in person, the livestream provided by the National Constitution Center offered a convenient way to access this detailed legal discourse. As these cases begin to inform future legal strategies and considerations, reviewing such analyses can be invaluable for legal professionals aiming to stay apprised of evolving interpretations and precedents. The Supreme Court’s just-finished term featured major rulings as varied as nationwide injunctions on President Donald Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship, gender-transition care for minors, religious liberties, and a bid to create the nation’s... There were multiple fierce clashes among the justices over Trump’s second-term agenda.

ACE Rebrand Update: The Alliance for Citizen Engagement is now The Alliance for Civic Engagement. With the Trump administration’s increased use of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, whereby the court can hear “emergency appeals” and rule without hearing oral arguments or issuing written decisions, the court has increasingly left... On June 27th, the 2024-2025 term came to a close ahead of its summer recess, with the court handing down some of its most controversial and consequential decisions yet. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond

On May 22nd, the court came to a tied 4-4 vote barring public funding for the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma. Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Genter Drummond, initially brought suit against the state’s Virtual Charter School Board over their contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, arguing said contract violates the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who seemed most sympathetic to St. Isidore’s arguments during the hearings, argued that to invalidate the contract would in itself be discrimination against the school on the basis of its religious status.

The court’s liberal bloc, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, focused on the case’s potential threat to the separation of church and state, as charter schools are “a creation and creature of the state.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, opening the door for a tied ruling. While she gave no explanation for her recusal, it is speculated she may’ve done so as a result of her long-standing friendship with one of St. Isidore’s advisors, Nicole Stelle Garnett. The court did not give a breakdown of which justices voted which way. In the case of a tied Supreme Court ruling, the ruling of the lower court (in this case, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma) stands.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in Drummond’s favor against the school. The door remains open, however, for the issue of public funding for religious charters to return to the court, should a similar case emerge that does not require recusal. The Supreme Court’s decisions in the 2024-2025 term will shape issues from health care to the privacy of our online activities, affecting millions of Americans. Yet, as we head into a pivotal election, there’s a growing focus on what the Court hasn’t taken up yet, leaving fundamental questions on the horizon. This Supreme Court term is not just about what cases they have scheduled to hear, but about the issues left off it—for now. With the Court reportedly holding space in its schedule to hear cases regarding the upcoming election and with questions left unanswered in the last term about how the Court will ultimately rule on abortion-related...

The start of the Supreme Court term should also cause Americans to reflect on what is happening in our courts in thousands of cases that shape our everyday lives. In lower courts across the country, in cases that have not made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court yet, the far-right legal movement is already trying to implement its dangerous Project 2025 agenda, from restricting overtime pay to making medications less affordable to banning abortion. The Democracy Forward community is on the frontline of these fights and more. Check out our “People’s Guide to the 2024-2025 SCOTUS Term” for an overview of some of the cases already set to be heard by the highest Court–in language you don’t need a law degree... A decision in this case could affect access to overtime pay for some workers across the nation—a key target of Project 2025.

A decision for Petitioners would mean that employers would still have to prove that “outside salesmen” not eligible for overtime were, in fact, not employees. However, it would not be as difficult for employers to make this proof as if the court ruled for the employee-respondent in this case. On June 27, the United States Supreme Court issued its final opinions of the 2024-25 term, which included major decisions on issues such as TikTok [TikTok v. Garland], states’ ability to ban transition care for transgender minors [United States v. Skrmetti], age verification requirements for adult websites [Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton], religious liberty [Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v.

Drummond and Mahmoud v. Taylor], and an emergency procedural question arising from U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship [Trump v. CASA]. Below, faculty offer their thoughts on some of the most important cases — and how they could impact the law and society. Following Donald Trump’s election last November, the biggest issue looming over the Supreme Court’s term immediately became how the Supreme Court would respond to the new president’s anticipated excesses, especially his willingness to ignore...

What then happened, however, was orders of magnitude more extreme as well as more challenging for the Court. Upon inauguration, the new president made clear his unqualified willingness the second time around to ignore not just the facts but also long settled law. By ordering without even the pretense of due process the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who did not possess the necessary authorization to be lawfully in the country, no matter how long... By firing tens of thousands of federal employees absent any remote effort to comply with their established job protections. By freezing congressionally appropriated funds required for the operation of entire federal agencies, hundreds of their programs, and thousands of federal grantees, thereby effectively terminating them all. And, in obvious violation of the First Amendment, by targeting the nation’s leading law firms and universities for enormous punishment for undertaking any actions that the president opposed.

The question became: would the Court stand up to the president? The stakes were raised even higher for the federal judiciary itself when the president and his closest advisors directed their wrath to any federal judge who ruled against them. By launching personal insults, decrying their incompetence and stupidity, characterizing their opinions as nothing more than the work of partisan, political hacks, calling for their impeachment, and even questioning the need to comply with... All actions that made individual judges and their families the targets of unprecedently high numbers of death threats, which prompted the chief justice to make clear his alarm but without assigning any specific blame. As underscored by the Court’s ruling last week in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. CASA, the majority’s chosen response has largely been to stand aside rather than stand up to the president.

People Also Search

• Key Takeaways from the 2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court Term: Implications ...
• A look back at the Supreme Court in 2025 | Constitution Center
• Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term: Key Cases and Constitutional Implications ...
• The Supreme Court's term by the numbers, in charts - The Washington Post
• Unpacking the Major Decisions of the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
• People's Guide to the 2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court Term
• Evaluating the Supreme Court: Harvard Law faculty weigh in on 2024-2025 ...
• Highlights of the 2024-25 U.S. Supreme Court Term
• Major Supreme Court Cases from the 2024-25 Term
• 8 Takeaways From The Latest SCOTUS Term - by David Lat