Our country continues to enjoy the legal and cultural benefits of the legacy President Trump created with three legitimate conservative-leaning additions to the Supreme Court during his first term. A flurry of 6-3 decisions and one 9-0 decision reached during the 2024-2025 session of the Court strengthened parental rights, restricted funding for abortion, protected children from porn and dangerous transgender procedures, and reinforced protections for religious liberty. Here is a quick look at the five decisions.
United States v. Skrmetti — The Court’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti affirms the state’s authority to protect minors from transgender-affirming irreversible medical procedures. The ruling affirms the rights of parents to make critical healthcare decisions for their children and supports the principle that states have the right and the duty to protect the health and well-being of children. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted, “Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us … but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.” South Carolina’s Do No Harm law is modeled after the Tennessee law and is currently being challenged in SC District Court by the ACLU in the lawsuit Misanin v. Wilson. The ACLU’s case relies heavily on the Equal Protection Clause, and while other elements of their argument remain, it is now likely South Carolina’s defense of Do No Harm will be successful.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic — At issue is whether Medicaid beneficiaries may sue states to enforce “any qualified provider” provision. By answering no, the landmark ruling affirms the Palmetto State’s right (and the right of other states) to exclude Planned Parenthood from state funding through Medicaid. The decision overturns a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and is bolstered by the removal of the federal funding of Planned Parenthood in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Because Planned Parenthood is one of the largest providers of abortion in South Carolina, this decision has the potential to lower the state’s abortion rate, and it protects pro-life Palmetto State residents from having their state tax dollars used to provide abortions.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton — The Court held that the Texas law requiring age verification for online porn sites aimed to prevent minors from accessing harmful material, not to burden the protected speech of adults. The ruling immediately affects Texas and at least 21 other states with similar or pending laws, providing a green light for broader adoption of age-verification requirements nationwide. It paves the way for South Carolina’s Child Online Verification Act to overcome any legal challenges to its constitutionality.
Mahmoud v. Taylor — Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland introduced LGBTQ+-inclusive books into the K–5 curriculum. Initially, parents could opt their children out of these lessons for religious reasons, but the school board later eliminated this option, making participation mandatory. The Court held that the school district’s refusal to allow opt-outs placed a substantial burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The decision affirmed that parents have a constitutional right to exempt their children from public school lessons that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission — Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation tax exemption for organizations operating primarily for religious purposes was the subject of the Court’s consideration regarding CCB. The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined CCB did not qualify for the exemption, reasoning that its activities were primarily charitable and secular, not religious. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision, reaffirming that states cannot discriminate against faith-based organizations in the application of exemptions simply because their religious expression takes the form of broad charitable service rather than religious instruction or worship.
Historically, this Supreme Court session will be remembered for the Court’s consistent and robust defense of parental constitutional rights, religious liberty, and the protection of children from radical LGBTQ+ ideology.