Here’s some background on the cases we’ll be discussing today with legal scholar Leah Litman.
Trump v CASA
This case began when Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of some immigrants.
Immediately, states and other groups sued to block the implementation of the executive order, which district courts did. The Trump administration brought suit, but they aren’t actually challenging birthright citizenship in court.
The federal court system has three levels. The lowest level is a system of district courts, where trials are held and cases are first heard.
Next comes circuit courts, which hear appeals from district courts. And the highest level is the Supreme Court, which mostly hears appeals from the lower courts.
What the Trump administration sought to do is limit the power of the district courts to stop them from blocking the implementation of a law, executive order, or regulation nationwide, while the case is battled out in court.
The opposing side argued that allowing district court judges to only issue rulings that apply to the parties of a case will cause a patchwork of laws and lawsuits, will cause confusion, and will negatively burden the court system.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court today sided with the Trump administration, limiting the power of district courts to issue universal injunctions. They did not reach the merits of the executive order about birthright citizenship.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
In one of the most diverse school districts in America, a major question was being asked: Can public schools require students to learn about LGBTQ+ people even if their parents think it conflicts with their family's religious beliefs?
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) added a new set of picture books to its elementary-school English curriculum to “assist students with mastering reading concepts and to teach respect for other students.” The school district says that the books are treated like any others in the curriculum: placed on classroom shelves for students to access, and available for teachers to use in reading groups or read-alouds.
Lawyers for the school system argue that the books “tell everyday tales of characters who experience adventure, confront new emotions, and struggle to make themselves heard,” and that the books explore themes similar to those in classic stories like Snow White, Cinderella, and Peter Pan. The titles were selected “in order to better represent all Montgomery County families,” and teachers may not use them “to pressure students to change or disavow religious views,” the lawyers wrote.
MCPS initially allowed opt-outs after some teachers, administrators, and parents raised concerns about the books, questioning their “efficacy and age-appropriateness.” But MCPS officials later ended the opt-out policy, saying that the number of requests for opt-outs was logistically too burdensome. The need to shuttle students in and out of the classroom was highly disruptive, and some schools were experiencing unsustainably high numbers of absences.
From the school district’s point of view, this wasn’t just about the difficulty of letting kids skip certain lessons, or just about a few books. It was also about something bigger: a principle. The district wouldn’t allow students to skip lessons about Black, Muslim, or Jewish people because of someone’s religious beliefs. So why should it be acceptable to skip lessons about LGBTQ+ people?
Not everyone agreed with the district’s approach.
A group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents, led by Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, filed a lawsuit. They argued that the no-opt-out policy violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Their children, they said, were being required to read or listen to books that conflicted with their beliefs, without the option to opt out. The parents believe this instruction “substantially interferes” with the teachings they are trying to impart to their children.
The parents are not challenging the presence of the books in schools or their inclusion in the curriculum. What they want is to be able to ensure their children will not have to participate in lessons including these materials.
The Court today sided with the parents, in a 6–3 decision, saying that the MCPS books and policies did more than just expose children to ideas they object to, that the curriculum was designed to convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender, and that this was unconstitutionally burdensome on the free exercise of religion.
Free Speech Coalition v Paxton
Times have changed. We’re no longer in an era of dirty magazines hidden under a mattress or even of the early internet, where going online cost a lot of money and tied up your phone line. It used to be that someone had to go looking for adult content. Now, it lands in your email inbox, it’s dropped in the chat links of online gaming systems, and banner ads entice website visitors to “click for a good time.”
This is understandably very concerning to parents, and how to protect minors from accessing adult content on the internet has led to a raft of age-verification laws implemented by states. The case before the Supreme Court involves a Texas law that requires that adult content sites like Pornhub, verify the age of the user before allowing them to access their materials.
In Texas, the age verification system requires that the user upload a government issued photo ID or use a third party verification system that uses publicly available databases to determine someone’s birthdate.
At the center of this case is which level of scrutiny should be applied when determining if the age verification law violates the First Amendment.
Courts use three levels of judicial tests when determining whether or not a law is constitutional: rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.
“Rational basis.” This is the lowest level. All the government must do is show that a law serves a “legitimate” government interest and is “rationally related” to it.
“Heightened” or “intermediate” scrutiny. To pass this test, the government must show that the law is “substantially related to an important government interest.”
“Strict” scrutiny. This is the highest bar. It requires that there be a “compelling” government interest and that the law be “narrowly tailored” to achieving it, meaning that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the same goal. A law that distinguished between people on racial grounds would be subject to strict scrutiny, as would any law that restricted a fundamental right like freedom of speech or religion.
During oral arguments, lawyers representing the Free Speech Coalition argued that strict scrutiny should be used because the law applies to “entire websites depending on whether one-third of their content is deemed inappropriate for minors” and said it also includes websites with health information.
Lawyers for Texas argue that the law should require a lower level of scrutiny, because we use age verification for other things, like purchasing firearms, and that does not violate anyone’s Constitutional rights.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court decided today that this case falls under intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny or rational basis, and that being forced to require proof of age for online material is acceptable, because no Americans have the First Amendment right to be free from age verification.
Louisiana v. Callais
This case involved the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Callais arose out of litigation over whether Louisiana’s 2020 voting redistricting drew district lines in a way that split up Black voters, making them less powerful as a voting bloc.
When a new map was drawn after the 2020 census, Black voters sued, saying the map was gerrymandered in such a way that Black voters only held a majority in one district, despite being one-third of the state's population. They argued the new map is in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.
They asked for a new map to be drawn that included a second majority-minority district so that they would be more equally represented. To avoid having a court redraw their maps, the state of Louisiana chose to redraw their own, creating a second majority-Black district.
But after that map was passed, a group of self-described "non-African American voters" said that this new map was racial gerrymandering. They sued, saying their "personal dignity" was affected because creating the new district "racially stigmatizes," "racially stereotypes" and "racially maligns" them. They argued that even attempting to give Black voters more political power discriminates against white voters.
During oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that one of the two new Louisiana districts where Black voters would be in the majority looked like a snake, winding its way from one corner of the state to the other, which is generally something that is not permissible under federal law — districts are supposed to be reasonably compact.
But the state wants the map that way, because they want to protect the Congressional seats of several prominent members, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Representatives Julia Letlow and Steve Scalise.
In an unexpected move, the Court did not release a decision on this case, instead asking for rearguments when the next term starts up in the fall.
Get access to our comments section and leave your questions for Leah Litman by becoming a paid subscriber to The Preamble.