As the U.S. Supreme Court nears the end of its 2024-2025 term, ten high-stakes cases remain on its docket — each potentially reshaping key areas of constitutional, administrative, and civil rights law. These pending rulings could significantly influence future legal arguments, especially for law students, litigators, and policy experts. Here’s your in-depth look at what’s left, why it matters, and what to watch for as the justices prepare to deliver their final verdicts before summer recess.
1. Hewitt v. United States
Issue: Applicability of the First Step Act to resentenced defendants.
Significance: This case could expand sentencing relief under the 2018 bipartisan criminal justice reform. At issue is whether a defendant resentenced after the Act’s enactment should benefit from its reduced mandatory minimums, even if originally sentenced before the Act. Given Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s background with the U.S. Sentencing Commission, she may author this opinion—likely favoring a broader application.
2. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Issue: Constitutionality of Texas law requiring age-verification on porn sites.
Significance: This pits First Amendment rights against the government’s interest in protecting minors. The debate centers on whether rational basis review or strict scrutiny applies. Expect a closely watched ruling, potentially authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, which could recalibrate the standard of review for digital content regulation.
3. Gutierrez v. Saenz
Issue: Whether a death row inmate has standing to seek postconviction DNA testing.
Significance: A deeply emotional and procedural case. If the Court rules in favor of the inmate, it may open doors for broader postconviction relief mechanisms nationwide. With Justice Sotomayor potentially writing, the opinion could lean toward expanding access to exoneration tools.
4. Louisiana v. Callais
Issue: Racial gerrymandering vs. political incumbency protection.
Significance: A new congressional map with two majority-Black districts faces a challenge from “non-African American” voters. The ruling could redefine how courts analyze redistricting under racial and political classifications, and affect future Voting Rights Act litigation.
5. Riley v. Bondi
Issue: Timing and rights in deportation appeals under immigration law.
Significance: The case challenges the rigid procedural deadlines immigrants must follow, particularly when final orders of removal and humanitarian protections are resolved at different times. The decision may affect due process rights of noncitizens facing removal.
6. FCC v. Consumers’ Research
Issue: Nondelegation doctrine and the Universal Service Fund.
Significance: At stake is the legality of a federal telecom subsidy program run through a quasi-governmental agency. A ruling here could dramatically narrow Congress’s ability to delegate regulatory authority — a move that could have ripple effects across every administrative agency.
7. Medina v. Planned Parenthood
Issue: Medicaid patients’ right to choose qualified providers under §1983.
Significance: If the Court says individual patients can enforce provider choice under civil rights laws, it strengthens patient autonomy and could bolster Planned Parenthood’s legal position in red states. If not, states may gain broader leeway to block providers.
8. Kennedy v. Braidwood Management
Issue: Constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s structure.
Significance: Religious liberty collides with health care mandates. A ruling invalidating the current task force structure could upend requirements under the Affordable Care Act for preventive services — including HIV medication and contraceptives.
9. Mahmoud v. Taylor
Issue: First Amendment rights of parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula.
Significance: A potentially landmark case about the intersection of religious freedom, education, and anti-discrimination norms. Expect a deeply divided opinion, likely from Justice Samuel Alito, potentially reshaping parental rights in public education.
10. Trump v. CASA
Issue: Whether federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
Significance: Though originating from a challenge to Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, the core question now is the scope of judicial authority. A ruling limiting nationwide injunctions could reduce the power of single district courts to halt federal policies — a major shift in separation of powers and judicial review.
✨ What’s at Stake:
With cases ranging from criminal justice reform to religious liberties, free speech, immigration, and administrative authority, these pending rulings promise to shape the legal landscape for years to come. Whether you’re a seasoned litigator or a law student prepping for exams or clerkships, these are the cases that will be discussed, cited, and debated in classrooms and courtrooms alike.
#SCOTUS #LegalUpdate #LawStudents #FirstAmendment #CriminalJusticeReform #AdministrativeLaw #VotingRights #ImmigrationLaw #CivilRights #ConstitutionalLaw #SupremeCourtDecisions #LawPractice #LegalBlog #LawyerLife
Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/the-cases-that-remain/
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment