Oral Arguments
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on May 15 in a case related to Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. To clarify, the case does not involve a challenge to the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the issue before the Court is whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
Trump is asking the justices to restrict nationwide injunctions, arguing that courts should only grant relief to those individuals who bring the initial lawsuit. Restricting nationwide injunctions would severely limit the ability of courts to block Trump’s harmful policies on a broad scale, weakening protections for vulnerable communities and making it harder to ensure equal justice nationwide.
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in two key cases: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management and Mahmoud v. Taylor. In Kennedy, Christian-owned businesses and individuals from Texas challenged the ACA’s requirement to cover expert-recommended preventive care, arguing it’s unconstitutional and exceeds federal agency authority. However, most justices seemed likely to uphold the mandate, preserving access to preventive services for millions.
In Mahmoud, the Court considered whether public schools' use of LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks and teachings on gender and sexuality violated the First Amendment, as Maryland parents claimed their religious rights were infringed by the lack of an opt-out option. Despite lower courts finding the record too “threadbare” to show a constitutional violation, the conservative justices appeared eager to side with the parents — a move that could invite broad censorship of inclusive curriculum and threaten safe, affirming schools for all students.
Next week, as the Supreme Court wraps up its term, it will hear A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a key case on disability rights in education. A.J.T., a student with severe epilepsy, sued the district for disability discrimination after it denied her request for evening instruction. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of A.J.T., it could lessen the burden for holding schools accountable in disability discrimination cases.
For more details on these cases, look at our Supreme Court Term Preview.