The United States Supreme Court concluded its latest term on Friday, June 28, 2025, issuing final rulings on significant cases that impact American life. These landmark US Supreme Court rulings addressed issues ranging from healthcare coverage and nationwide injunctions to online content restrictions and school curriculum.
Contents
Key takeaways from the term’s end include decisions that upheld preventive healthcare requirements under the Affordable Care Act, affirmed Texas’s age restrictions for online pornography, allowed parents to opt out of school materials with LGBTQ themes on religious grounds, and limited the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions.
Key Supreme Court Rulings from the 2025 Term
The nine justices issued several notable decisions before beginning their summer recess, which runs until October.
Preventive Care Requirements Upheld
In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a government task force’s authority to mandate preventive healthcare services covered by insurance providers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
A challenge argued that the task force violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which requires certain officials to be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.
In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld the task force’s authority. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan – in the majority.
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that the task force members were “inferior officers” and did not require Senate approval under the Constitution. This ruling preserves a key aspect of the ACA regarding no-cost preventive care.
US Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., as the court concluded its 2025 term with key decisions.
Texas Age Verification Law for Online Pornography Affirmed
The Supreme Court also reviewed a Texas law requiring age verification to access online pornography, aimed at protecting minors. The case, Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton, was brought by a non-profit representing the adult entertainment industry.
The Free Speech Coalition argued the law infringed upon First Amendment rights to free expression, association, and privacy, citing risks associated with sharing personal information online.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that age verification imposes a “burden” on First Amendment exercise. However, he concluded that “adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification” entirely. The majority upheld the Texas law.
Parental Opt-Out for LGBTQ School Material Supported
In Mahmoud v Taylor, the court addressed a challenge from parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, regarding their ability to opt their children out of primary school materials that include LGBTQ themes. The school board had previously approved such books but later decided against allowing opt-outs, citing potential disruption and a desire to foster an “inclusive environment.”
Parents objected on religious grounds to books like Love, Violet and Pride Puppy, which feature LGBTQ characters or themes.
The conservative majority sided with the parents. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the board’s policy suggested parents’ religious views were unwelcome and that the curriculum attempted to “impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender.”
Limitation on Nationwide Injunctions
One of the term’s most significant procedural rulings came in Trump v CASA, where the court considered the legality of nationwide injunctions. These court orders block executive actions from taking effect across the entire country, rather than just for the specific parties involved in a lawsuit.
The case arose after federal courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking an executive order signed by President Donald Trump related to birthright citizenship. Trump’s order sought to narrow the application of birthright citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly for children of undocumented immigrants.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright citizenship issue itself but focused on the scope of the injunctions. Read more about the decision to limit nationwide injunctions here.
In a decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the conservative majority ruled that injunctions should generally provide relief only to the specific plaintiffs in a case, with potential exceptions like class action lawsuits. This decision limits the power of lower courts to issue broad orders blocking federal policies nationwide.
Conclusion
As the US Supreme Court concludes its 2025 term, these final rulings underscore the court’s influence on key aspects of American life, from healthcare access and fundamental rights to the balance of governmental power. The decisions highlight ongoing legal and societal debates and will have lasting implications.
