What’s at Stake: US Supreme Court 2025–2026 Term
What’s at Stake:
US Supreme Court 2025–2026 Term
Updated: 04/14/2025
The Supreme Court will convene for its 2025-26 term on October 6, 2025. Following a contentious 2024-25 term where many of the ‘blockbuster’ decisions came from the emergency docket, the Court has agreed to hear arguments on several cases in the coming year of particular interest to NCJW. Be sure to check back regularly for new cases and updates as the Court adds new cases to their docket, some of which may actually involve issues that were on last term’s shadow docket.
Quick Links to Cases:
LGBTQ+ Rights
West Virginia v. B. P. J. / Little v. Hecox
Two cases involving participation by transgender students in sports have been consolidated. The West Virginia case concerns B.P.J. who is a 14-year old transgender girl in West Virginia barred from school sports by her principal, citing a West Virginia law excluding transgender girls from all-girls sports teams in middle school through college. B.P.J’s mother went to federal court arguing that her daughter’s exclusion violated Title IX and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court ruled that the case was likely to succeed and ordered the state to allow B.P.J’s participation, but later a US district court judge ruled for the state on summary judgement. The Fourth Circuit put the decision on hold but, in April 2023, the US Supreme Court rejected West Virginia’s request to allow the state to enforce its law while the case was in process. In April 2024, a divided Fourth Circuit ruled that the state law violates Title IX by discriminating based on sex. The state appealed to the US Supreme Court which has decided to hear the case in conjunction with a case from Idaho brought by a transgender student at Boise State University who wanted to compete in women’s track and cross-country teams at the school despite a state ban. In this case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Idaho’s law violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Although Lindsay Hecox, the plaintiff in the Idaho case, asked the court to dismiss the case as moot, the Supreme Court decided to wait until oral arguments to decide whether to do so.
Oral Arguments: January 13, 2026
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions support, “The inclusion and acceptance of all individuals no matter their gender self identification.” At stake in this case is the fundamental right of transgender students to be included, respected, and given the same opportunities as their peers in athletics and beyond.
Chiles v. Salazar
Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law prohibits mental health professionals from providing clients under age 18 with “conversion therapy” which aims to “convert” LGBTQ+ youth to heterosexuality or traditional gender identity. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, challenged the law as a violation of both free speech rights and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction to bar the state from applying the law to her. In a divided vote, the district court denied her request for an injunction which was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. Chiles appealed to the Supreme Court which has agreed to hear her case.
Oral Arguments: October 7, 2025. Read the amicus brief NCJW joined in this case.
Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports laws which protect LGBTQ+ youth from “conversion therapy” which can be dangerous to their mental health. In addition, our National Resolutions support, “The inclusion and acceptance of all individuals no matter their gender selfidentification.” At stake in this case is whether states can protect LGBTQ+ youth from the profound harm of so-called “conversion therapy,” affirming their dignity, safety, and right to grow up free from practices that deny their identity and humanity.
Decision: On March 31, 2026, in an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts, instructing them to apply an elevated standard of review “strict scrutiny.” In his majority opinion Justice Gorsuch stressed that Colorado’s ban censors speech based on viewpoint. The lone dissenter, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the state has a right to regulate medical professionals and that they had banned conversion therapy “based on the medical professional’s broad consensus that this medical treatment… is ineffective and harmful.”
Religious Freedom
Damon Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections and Public Safety, et al.
Near the conclusion of his sentence in 2020, Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian, was transferred to a new prison. In keeping with the strictures of his religion, Mr. Landor had not cut his hair for almost 20 years. Even though he provided the intake guard with a copy of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state policy prohibiting prisoners from wearing dreadlocks, the warden had him restrained while guards shaved his head. Mr. Landor sued in federal court, citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a 2000 law passed to strengthen prisoners’ religious rights. The District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed his claim and the Fifth Circuit concurred, holding that the RLUIPA does not allow private plaintiffs to bring claims against individual officials for money damages. The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal to determine whether an individual can sue in their individual capacity for damages for violations of their rights under RLIUIPA).
Oral Arguments: November 10, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions state, “Religious liberty and the separation of religion and state are constitutional principles that must be protected and preserved in order to maintain our democratic society.” NCJW advocated for passage of RLIUIPA.
First Amendment
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers are faith-based, anti-abortion pregnancy centers in New Jersey that the state attorney general’s office believes may have misled women seeking abortion care as well as donors to the non-profit. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin subpoenaed the clinics for a list of their donors, among other information. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court as a violation of their First Amendment rights, but the court decided that only a state court had the power to squash a subpoena. A panel of the Third Circuit agreed with the lower court and dismissed the case, leading First Choice to appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Court agreed to decide whether the centers must go to the state courts before seeking relief from the federal courts.
Oral Arguments: December 2, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW is deeply concerned about pregnancy centers that provide false and incomplete information to pregnant people and often deceive those seeking care and advice. Our National Resolutions support, “Health services based on full and unbiased medically accurate information, supported by inclusionary and scientific research and funding.”
Voting Rights and Democracy
Louisiana v. Callais
Although this case was heard by the US Supreme Court in March 2025, the Court announced on the final day of that term that the case would be re-argued this term. The case involves a 2024 redrawn congressional voting map that added a second majority Black district to a 2022 map that had only one such district out of six. The new district was added after a federal court ruled that having only one majority Black district in a state, Louisiana, where one-third of the voters are Black, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits election practices that result “in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” A group, self-described as non-African American, went to federal court claiming that the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering because it relied too heavily on race. When the Supreme Court decided to rehear the case, it allowed the 2024 map to stand.
Oral Argument: October 15, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW is a strong supporter of the protections of the Voting Rights Act and believes that voters of color should have the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice without having their votes diluted, a core component of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)
In 2022, the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees along with then Sen. J.D. Vance and Rep. Steve Cabot—both Ohio Republican members of Congress—sued the FEC. They argued that federal limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from political candidates, violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. They argued that there had been developments since the US Supreme Court 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee which upheld the federal limits. However, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled that the limits did not violate the First Amendment and that the Supreme Court decision still prevailed. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court which has agreed to hear the case. Coming before the 2026 midterm elections, this case has the potential to change how political parties spend millions of dollars in elections.
Oral Argument: December 9, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that unrestricted money in politics unduly influences elections and jeopardizes the potential for free and fair elections.
Watson v. Republican National Committee
Mississippi as well as 30 other states and the District of Columbia allow absentee mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are received within five business days after an election. The Mississippi Libertarian Party had a similar case which was combined. In 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and two individuals went to court challenging the Mississippi law. A US district court judge upheld the Mississippi law but the Fifth Circuit Court reversed the ruling, pointing out that federal law sets a particular day in November as election day and therefore all ballots must be received by that date. The full Fifth Circuit declined to rehear the case, leading Mississippi to appeal to the US Supreme Court. The state argues that as long as ballots are cast before election day, they are valid even if they aren’t received until sometime after and that — with the 2026 election coming up — officials need to have clarity about the legality of ballots that arrive post-Election Day. The RNC is urging the Supreme Court to agree with the Fifth Circuit.
Oral Arguments: March 23, 2026
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions support: “Election laws, policies, and practices that ensure — without foreign or domestic interference — safe, easy, and equitable access to the ballot and eliminate obstacles to the electoral process so that every vote counts and can be verified.” Laws restricting the counting of mail-in ballots cast by Election Day but received after, serve to disenfranchise some voters.
Immigration
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
In 2016, in response to a surge of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border near San Diego, the US instituted “metering,” which is a policy of turning away asylum seekers at official ports of entry into the United States because border officials are “at capacity.” This practice left asylum seekers stranded in Mexico in often dangerous situations with no time certain as to when their application would be accepted. Federal immigration law states that a noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival … may apply for asylum.” Border officials then screen those asylees and may refer them for an interview with an asylum officer or to an immigration court. Al Otro Lado, an immigration group, and 13 immigrants challenged the legality of metering and asked the Ninth Circuit Court whether asylum seekers turned away from ports of entry before they could enter the US had “arrived” in the US for purposes of applying for asylum under federal law. Although a three-judge panel voted 2-1 in favor of Al Otro Lado, the full Ninth Circuit in a close vote declined to reconsider the case. The Trump administration asked the US Supreme Court to weigh in. Metering ended in 2021 under Biden, but legal proceedings continue and new severe restrictions have been put on asylum.
Oral Arguments: March 24, 2026
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions call for: “comprehensive, humane, and equitable immigration, refugee, and asylum laws, policies, and practices.” Through advocacy and direct service, NCJW has historically supported individuals seeking asylum in the United States.
Trump v. Barbara
This case seeks to determine the legality of President Trump’s Executive Order severely restricting birthright citizenship which was immediately blocked by many lower courts. In its previous term, the Supreme Court heard arguments and decided a case involving birthright citizenship, but the case centered on the technical issue of the power of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. They explicitly did not consider the legality of birthright citizenship—the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This case from New Hampshire named for the representative plaintiff, a Honduran woman going by her first name in order to protect her family, is an appeal of a class-action suit brought on behalf of children and their parents challenging the Executive Order.
Oral Arguments: April 1, 2026
Why We’re Watching: If the Executive Order is allowed to stand, tens of thousands of children born in the US each year would lose citizenship and the ability to access critical social safety-net programs. NCJW believes that, “Individual liberties and rights guaranteed by the Constitution are keystones of a free and pluralistic society and must be protected and preserved.”
Gun Violence
United States v. Hemani
When FBI agents searched the home of Ali Danail Hemani in Texas, they found a gun, marijuana, and cocaine. Prosecutors charged Hemani with violating a federal law which prohibits users of illegal drugs from possessing a gun. Hemani asked the court to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional. The district court judge agreed with Hermani, relying on an older Fifth Circuit case which invalidated a similar conviction because a jury did not find that the defendant in the earlier case was “presently or even recently engaged in unlawful drug use.” The government asked the US Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that this narrow prohibition on gun possession is necessary as “habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society…” Hemani is arguing to keep the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in place.
Oral Arguments: March 2, 2026
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions support: “Expansion and enforcement of laws, policies, and programs that regulate firearms and ammunition, ban assault and other military-style weapons and accessories, and prevent gun violence and promote gun safety.”
Wolford v. Lopez
In 2023, Hawaii and California passed laws that changed the default rule governing the carrying of guns on private property open to the public, generally banning firearms. The Hawaii law allows the property owner to expressly permit firearms by making it clear verbally, in writing, or via a posted sign. A group of individuals and the Hawaii Firearms Association, supported by the Trump administration, sued contending that Hawaii’s ban on concealed carry on private property constitutes an almost complete ban on concealed carry that has no historical basis. A similar suit was brought by California gun owners. District courts blocked enforcement of many of the new state provisions. The Ninth Circuit consolidated the cases and allowed many of the challenged restrictions to remain in place but agreed with the district courts that the states could not, for example, ban firearms in banks or hospitals. The US Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Oral Arguments: January 20, 2026
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions support: “Expansion and enforcement of laws, policies, and programs that regulate firearms and ammunition, ban assault and other military-style weapons and accessories, and prevent gun violence and promote gun safety.”
Death Penalty
Hamm v. Smith
In the landmark 2002 Atkins v. Virginia case, the Supreme Court held that executions of mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Alabama. Years later he sought to overturn his death sentence on the grounds that he is intellectually disabled. The question in the case was whether he met the three-pronged test for intellectual disability: significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, significant deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifestation of these qualities before age 18. His IQ testing yielded multiple scores that fell within or near the range considered intellectually disabled. His experts testified that four of his five scores were consistent with mild intellectual disability although the state’s expert contended that the multiple scores placed him in the borderline zone. The District for the Southern District of Alabama agreed with Mr. Smith’s experts, vacating his death sentence which was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The Supreme Court however remanded the case and asked the circuit court to clarify whether their ruling relied on the lower end of the scores or on a holistic analysis of all of the evidence. The Eleventh Circuit explained that they based their decision on a holistic analysis. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case to determine how a defendant’s claim of intellectual disability should be assessed when multiple IQ tests have been taken.
Oral Arguments: November 4, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s National Resolutions support, “the abolition of the death penalty.” Arguments over who qualifies for execution and how highlight the deep flaws and injustices inherent in capital punishment — flaws this case could entrench with devastating consequences.