<!–>
[–><!–>
–><!–>
<!–>
–><!–>
[–><!–>
–><!–>
[–><!–>
–><!–>
[–><!–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Police Use of Excessive Force<!–>
–><!–>
Barnes v. Felix
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
9-0 ruling on May 15
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor
Jackson
Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Still, Judge Higginbotham bemoaned the finding, writing in a concurring opinion: “A routine traffic stop has again ended in the death of an unarmed Black man, and again we cloak a police officer with qualified immunity, shielding his liability.”<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether courts should consider any officer actions that may have unnecessarily increased the danger they faced or consider only actions in the seconds before safety was threatened<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Any officer actions<!–> | –>Only actions in the seconds before<!–> |
All respondents70%30% Democrats61%39% Republicans75%25% Independents71%29%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Regulation of Flavored Vapes<!–>
–><!–>
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
9-0 ruling on April 2
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor
Jackson
Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The government said that if the court sided with the Fifth Circuit, it would have “far reaching consequences for public health” and frustrate the goal of preventing young Americans from becoming addicted to nicotine and tobacco products.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether the F.D.A. should be able to ban flavored e-cigarettes<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Should be able to ban<!–> | –>Should not be able to ban<!–> |
All respondents65%35% Democrats71%29% Republicans64%37% Independents62%38%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>“Ghost Guns”<!–>
–><!–>
Garland v. VanDerStok
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
7-2 ruling on March 26
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor
Jackson
Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, courts agreed the government could impose some regulations on weapons that met the definition of a firearm. In 2022, under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued regulations that broadened the bureau’s interpretation of the definition of firearm to include homemade guns assembled from the kits.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>A federal district judge in Texas, Judge Reed O’Connor, had sided with the challengers and struck down the regulation in 2024, finding that “a weapon parts kit is not a firearm.”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed Judge O’Connor’s ruling. President Trump appointed all three panel members.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The Biden administration had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case after law enforcement agencies reported that ghost guns were increasingly popular and being used to commit crimes. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar had argued that the lower court’s ruling would produce “a flood of untraceable ghost guns into our nation’s communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes.”
The regulation did not ban the sale or possession of kits and components that can be assembled to make guns, but it did require manufacturers and sellers to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers and conduct background checks.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether the government should be able to regulate homemade firearm kits<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Should be able to regulate<!–> | –>Should not be able to regulate<!–> |
All respondents75%25% Democrats88%12% Republicans67%33% Independents73%27%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>TikTok, the First Amendment and National Security<!–>
–><!–>
TikTok v. Garland
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
9-0 ruling on Jan. 17
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor
Jackson
Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
A few years later, the Supreme Court again rejected the invocation of national security to justify limiting speech, ruling in 1971 that the Nixon administration could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War. The court did so despite government warnings that publishing would imperil intelligence agents and peace talks.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Neomi J. Rao. “Here the government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan acknowledged that the law could result in some Americans losing a means of expression but said Congress had acted to address “grave national security threats it perceived” and not to suppress any particular message.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The decision stands for two propositions: that national security concerns can overcome the Supreme Court’s general commitment to free speech and that Mr. Trump is prepared to sidestep a law passed with lopsided bipartisan majorities and upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether the government should be able to ban social media platforms controlled by foreign adversaries<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Should be able to ban<!–> | –>Should not be able to ban<!–> |
All respondents58%42% Democrats50%50% Republicans72%28% Independents51%49%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Transition Care for Transgender Youths<!–>
–><!–>
United States v. Skrmetti
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether states should be able to ban transgender minors from obtaining certain treatments<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Should be able to ban<!–> | –>Should not be able to ban<!–> |
All respondents64%36% Democrats38%62% Republicans90%11% Independents63%37%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Religious Charter Schools<!–>
–><!–>
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
“St. Isidore is a public charter school,” the majority said, noting that the state law allowing such schools requires them to be nonsectarian. “Under both state and federal law,” the majority ruled, “the state is not authorized to establish or fund St. Isidore.”<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
<!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether public charter schools can be religious<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Cannot be religious<!–> | –>Can be religious<!–> |
All respondents51%49% Democrats67%33% Republicans34%66% Independents52%48%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Birthright Citizenship<!–>
–><!–>
Trump v. CASA
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The government argues that the temporary pauses on the president’s birthright citizenship order, called nationwide injunctions, are unconstitutional. A debate has simmered for years on whether such injunctions are allowed, but the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue.
Meanwhile, the court has held that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, which means that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of the immigration status of the parents. In the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the justices determined that Mr. Wong, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese citizens, was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>A decision by the justices in favor of the Trump administration could lift the national pause on the order ending birthright citizenship, potentially clearing the way for the policy to go into effect in parts of the country as lawsuits continue.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether the Constitution grants citizenship to people whose parents are in the country unlawfully or temporarily, like everyone else born in the United States<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Constitution grants citizenship<!–> | –>Should not be given citizenship<!–> |
All respondents64%37% Democrats87%13% Republicans39%61% Independents67%33%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Gun Makers’ Liability<!–>
–><!–>
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>Lawyers for the gun industry argue that gun makers are specifically insulated against such lawsuits by a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law, which was passed after an increasing number of lawsuits sought to hold the gun industry liable in domestic mass shootings, gives gun makers broad immunity.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
But a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, had revived the suit, finding that it qualified under an exception in the law that authorizes claims for knowing violations of firearms laws that are a direct cause of a plaintiff’s injuries.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The lawsuit by the Mexican government seeks billions of dollars in damages.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether it should be possible to hold U.S. gun makers financially responsible for crimes committed by Mexican cartels<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Should not be possible<!–> | –>Should be possible<!–> |
All respondents64%37% Democrats45%55% Republicans79%21% Independents65%35%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Race and Congressional Redistricting<!–>
–><!–>
Louisiana v. Callais
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The justices will decide whether to allow Louisiana to continue to use a congressional voting map that includes two majority-Black districts in the state. At issue is whether the Republican-drawn map violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
In other decisions, the Supreme Court has effectively gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which had required federal approval of changes to state and local voting laws in parts of the country with a history of racial discrimination, and curtailed Section 2 of the law, limiting the ability of minority groups to challenge voting restrictions.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
A divided Supreme Court had paused the lower-court decision, temporarily reinstating the congressional map that included the second majority-Black district.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>Changes to the congressional map in Louisiana could have national implications. The case could not only shift the boundaries of majority-Black districts in Louisiana but also help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in the coming years, when political control of the chamber has frequently rested on razor-thin margins. Voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the court could also further undermine the Voting Rights Act, a central legislative achievement of the civil rights movement.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether using race in redistricting is constitutional<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>It is not constitutional<!–> | –>It is constitutional<!–> |
All respondents72%28% Democrats62%38% Republicans82%18% Independents72%28%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Age Verification for Porn Sites<!–>
–><!–>
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed, with Judge Jerry E. Smith writing for the majority that age-verification requirements would promote the government’s “legitimate interest” in preventing minors from having access to pornography. Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham dissented, saying that the law chills free speech rights and could limit adults’ access to popular shows and films like “Game of Thrones,” “The Color Purple” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.”<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether states should be able to require websites to verify users’ ages<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Should be able to require<!–> | –>Should not be able to require<!–> |
All respondents80%20% Democrats75%25% Republicans88%12% Independents77%23%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Parental Opt-Outs From Classroom Discussion of L.G.B.T.Q. Themes<!–>
–><!–>
Mahmoud v. Taylor
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
The court has ruled in favor of a web designer who said she did not want to create sites for same-sex marriages, a high school football coach who said he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games and a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia that said it could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Writing for the majority of a three-judge panel, Judge G. Steven Agee found that there was no evidence that the parents or their children were forced to change their religious beliefs because no opt-out was provided to the lessons. “Simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires,” he wrote.
In dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. said the parents had made a modest request. “They do not claim the use of the books is itself unconstitutional,” he wrote. “And they do not seek to ban them. Instead, they only want to opt their children out of the instruction involving such texts.”<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>A broad ruling from the Supreme Court could disrupt the ability of public schools to manage their curriculums. In earlier cases, parents unsuccessfully challenged course materials on evolution and the Big Bang theory and storybooks about wizards and giants.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether schools must give parents who have religious objections the ability to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Must give the ability<!–> | –>Do not need to give the ability<!–> |
All respondents77%23% Democrats69%31% Republicans89%11% Independents72%28%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–><!–>
–><!–>
–>Reverse Discrimination<!–>
–><!–>
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
<!–>
–> <!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
Not yet decided
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
<!–>
–><!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>The case comes amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity.<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
–>On whether people claiming reverse discrimination should have to meet the same standards as minorities claiming discrimination or should have to show more evidence<!–>
–>
<!–>
–> <!–>
–><!–>
| –>Same standards<!–> | –>Show more evidence<!–> |
All respondents70%30% Democrats61%39% Republicans75%25% Independents71%29%
–>
<!–>
–>
<!–>
–>
–>
