The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating several significant cases that could reshape aspects of American law and society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on two cases including FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC regulating flavored vapes, and TikTok Inc. v. Garland on banning TikTok for national security. As the Court session continues, the justices will review a series of cases including Trump’s birthright citizenship order and public education cases that test the boundaries of religious liberty, parental rights, and federal authority.
Just earlier this week on May 15, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Barnes v. Felix on police use of excessive force ruling that in cases relating to police shootings, judges must consider all the relevant circumstances in their scrutiny of challenges, not just “the moment of threat.” The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that all aspects leading up to an instance of police force should be considered as context.
In the weeks to come, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on various other issues. The Supreme Court has been reviewing the legality of an executive order issued by President Trump in January 2025, which aims to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents. As of May 15, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments from stakeholders including New Jersey solicitor general, Jeremy Feigenbaum for Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Lower federal courts have blocked the order, citing potential violations of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. The administration is challenging the scope of these nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutional merits of the order itself. A ruling in favor of the executive order could redefine birthright citizenship and limit the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, potentially affecting over 150,000 births annually.
There are also two pivotal education cases poised to redefine the boundaries between public education and religious freedom including Mahmoud v. Taylor and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. These decisions could significantly influence how schools nationwide handle curriculum content, charter school funding, and diversity initiatives.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, claim that the local public school district infringed upon their First Amendment rights by mandating their children’s “exposure” to LGBTQ+-themed books without offering opt-out provisions. Initially, Montgomery County Public Schools allowed parents to exempt their children from these readings. However, in March 2023, the district revoked this policy, citing administrative challenges and concerns about stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students.
During oral arguments in April 2025, the Supreme Court appeared divided. The conservative leaning justices expressed concern over potential religious discrimination and that the school district must do more to “protect parents”, while the more liberal leaning justices worried that granting opt-outs could lead to widespread curriculum challenges.
At its core, Mahmoud v. Taylor addresses a growing national tension between inclusive public education and parental religious rights. A ruling in favor of the parents could significantly reshape how public schools operate, potentially forcing districts to offer opt-out provisions for any curriculum materials that families claim conflict with their religious beliefs.
The other case relating to education, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, focuses on public funding for religious charter schools. This case examines whether a state can fund a religious charter school. In 2023, Oklahoma approved the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, marking the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court later ruled this approval unconstitutional, asserting that charter schools are public entities and must remain secular.
Proponents argue that excluding religious institutions from public programs constitutes discrimination, while opponents contend that public funding of religious schools violates the Establishment Clause. This clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has previously supported religious entities’ participation in public programs, suggesting a potential leaning in favor of the charter school.
A decision permitting public funding for religious charter schools could blur the lines between church and state, prompting other states to consider similar initiatives and reshaping the charter school landscape.
As the Supreme Court moves toward issuing decisions in these consequential cases, the nation stands at a legal and cultural crossroads. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to uphold long-standing interpretations of constitutional rights or chart new directions, its rulings on birthright citizenship, religious expression in public education, and federal authority will have sweeping implications.
