Police Use of Excessive Force
Barnes v. Felix
9-0 ruling on May 15
The Supreme Court ruled that judges must consider all the relevant circumstances in their scrutiny of challenges to police shootings, not just “the moment of threat.” The case concerns Roberto Felix Jr., a police officer in Texas, who shot and killed Ashtian Barnes, a motorist he had pulled over for unpaid tolls, after jumping on Mr. Barnes’s car as he tried to pull away.
In a 2020 decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled that only “the moment of threat” should be examined to determine if police officers engaged in excessive force, adding that “any of the officers’ actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry.”
Saying it was bound by the 2020 decision, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled last year in favor of Officer Felix on what it said was a narrow question. “We may only ask whether Officer Felix was in danger ‘at the moment of the threat’ that caused him to use deadly force against Barnes,” Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote for the panel.
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.”
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.”
Qualified immunity is a powerful legal shield that requires victims of violence by police officers and prison guards to prove that the officials had violated a clearly established constitutional right. The doctrine has been the subject of scathing criticism across the ideological spectrum. The case could broaden the circumstances in which people who have been subject to violence by police can sue.
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 actionsOnly actions in the seconds before
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments
9-0 ruling on April 2
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had acted lawfully in rejecting applications from two manufacturers of flavored liquids used in e-cigarettes with names like Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies. The court returned one aspect of the case to a lower court for further consideration.
In a separate case, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the agency had properly rejected a similar application and agreed that the products “posed a serious risk to youth without enough offsetting benefits to adults.”
The Fifth Circuit ruled in 2024 that the agency had changed the rules in the middle of the application process, accusing it of “regulatory switcheroos” that sent the companies “on a wild-goose chase.” More formally, the court said the agency’s actions had been arbitrary and capricious.
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 banShould not be able to ban
Garland v. VanDerStok
7-2 ruling on March 26
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.
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.
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 regulateShould not be able to regulate
TikTok v. Garland
9-0 ruling on Jan. 17
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that sought to ban the wildly popular app TikTok in the United States unless it were sold. President Trump has so far disregarded the ruling, allowing the app to continue operating while it pursues a deal that would satisfy the administration.
In 1965, during the Cold War, the court unanimously struck down a law requiring people who wanted to receive foreign mail that the government had deemed “Communist political propaganda” to file a request with the Post Office, saying the law violated the First Amendment.
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.
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.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in December rejected a challenge to the TikTok law, ruling that it was justified by national security concerns.
“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 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 banShould not be able to ban
United States v. Skrmetti
Not yet decided
The court will decide whether a Tennessee law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medication and providing hormone therapy to transgender minors violates equal protection principles.
In 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that a 1964 federal civil rights law prohibiting workplace discrimination “because of sex” protected transgender employees. The Tennessee case concerns the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which is written in general terms, rather than a statute that mentions sex.The Biden administration challenged the Tennessee statute, with the government’s lawyers writing that “exactly the same thing is true under the equal protection clause” as was the case under Bostock.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, reversed that decision. Tennessee’s law, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote for the majority, was a reasonable legislative response to contested medical evidence. “The unsettled, developing, in truth still experimental, nature of treatments in this area surely permits more than one policy approach,” he wrote, “and the Constitution does not favor one over the other.”
Transgender rights have become a ferocious battleground in the culture wars, and initiatives over health care, bathrooms, sports and pronouns have played a prominent role in President Trump’s agenda during the early months of his second term. The ruling could affect more than 20 other states that have laws similar to the one in Tennessee.
On whether states should be able to ban transgender minors from obtaining certain treatments
Should be able to banShould not be able to ban
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond
Not yet decided
The Supreme Court will decide whether Oklahoma may use government money to run the nation’s first religious charter school, which would teach a curriculum infused by Catholic doctrine.
In earlier cases from Maine and Montana, the court ruled that states that decide to create programs to help parents pay for private schools must allow them to choose religious ones. In the case from Maine, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, distinguished government payment to public schools, saying that “Maine may provide a strictly secular education in its public schools.”
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the school, with the majority saying it would “create a slippery slope” that could lead to “the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention.”
“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.”
“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 religiousCan be religious
Trump v. CASA
Not yet decided
The court will decide the legality of a nationwide pause imposed by lower courts on the enforcement of an executive order signed by President Trump on his first day back in office. The order would end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents.
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.
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.
President Trump’s order was immediately challenged by immigrant groups, individuals and a number of Democratic-led states. Three lower federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington State have issued injunctions on the executive order while the cases proceed through the court system. The federal judge in Washington State, John C. Coughenour, called Mr. Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.”
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 citizenshipShould not be given citizenship
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Not yet decided
The Supreme Court will decide whether the Mexican government can sue U.S. gun makers over claims that they share the blame for violence by drug cartels.
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.
A federal trial judge in Boston, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit, concluding it was prohibited by the 2005 federal law. The judge wrote that the law “bars exactly this type of action from being brought in federal and state courts.”
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.
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 possibleShould be possible
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.
The case has echoes of another voting rights challenge that the justices ruled on just two years ago, a dispute over Alabama’s congressional map. In that case, Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters with its map, upholding the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.”
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.
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 panel of federal judges had sided with the challengers, temporarily blocking the state from using the new map. The panel said the new map most likely violated the Constitution because race had been the State Legislature’s predominant consideration.
A divided Supreme Court had paused the lower-court decision, temporarily reinstating the congressional map that included the second majority-Black district.
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 constitutionalIt is constitutional
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Not yet decided
The court will decide whether a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to sexual materials on the internet by requiring age verification measures can survive First Amendment scrutiny.
In 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, the justices blocked a federal law quite similar to the one from Texas, applying the most demanding form of judicial review, strict scrutiny, to find that the law impermissibly interfered with adults’ First Amendment rights.
Judge David A. Ezra, of the Federal District Court in Austin, blocked the law, saying it would have a chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment.
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.”
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.”
Twenty other states have enacted similar laws. Their supporters say the laws are needed to shield children from graphic, violent and degrading material online. Critics say that there are better ways to do so and that the laws violate the First Amendment rights of adults.
On whether states should be able to require websites to verify users’ ages
Should be able to requireShould not be able to require
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Not yet decided
The Supreme Court will decide whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents to be able to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with gay and transgender characters are discussed if they have religious objections to the books.
In recent cases, the Supreme Court has expanded the role of religion in public life, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights.
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.
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.
The Fourth Circuit ruled against the parents.
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.”
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 abilityDo not need to give the ability
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
Not yet decided
The Supreme Court will decide whether members of majority groups must meet a heightened burden to prove discrimination in a case involving a straight woman who said her employer had discriminated against her in favor of gay colleagues.
The federal civil rights law at issue in the case does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a minority or majority group. But the Sixth Circuit required the plaintiff to prove an additional element if she lacked direct evidence of discrimination: “background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
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 standardsShow more evidence