What’s at Stake: US Supreme Court 2024–2025 Term
What’s at Stake:
US Supreme Court 2024–2025 Term
Updated: 02/4/2025
The US Supreme Court term begins on October 7, 2024 amid a contentious election season, growing concern over Supreme Court justices’ ethical behavior, and a precipitous drop in public trust in the high court. The 2024–25 docket already includes several high-profile cases with others likely to be added. The cases listed on this page are of particular interest to NCJW and we’ll be closely watching them. We’ll add new cases and updates here as the term progresses, so be sure to check back regularly for updates.
Quick Links to Cases:
Gun Violence
Garland v. VanDerStok
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed it included a technical definition of “firearms” that became outdated in recent years as firearms have been redesigned. Weapons such as AR-15’s, Glock pistols, and ‘ghost guns’ — which are unserialized and untraceable firearms that are put together by components purchased either as a kit or as separate pieces — that proliferate our streets today do not fit the original definition. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the federal agency that enforces the GCA, updated the definition of firearms to take into account these new kinds of firearms. Plaintiffs from the firearms parts industry sued, asserting that the ATF had gone beyond its congressionally mandated authority when it issued the redefinition. In 2023, a federal district court judge in Texas agreed and blocked the rule from going into effect nationwide. The Biden Administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene and, in a 5–4 vote, they reinstated the rule while the case went before the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court, leading the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. As Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned, this could lead to a “flood of untraceable ghost guns into our Nation’s communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes.”
Oral Arguments: October 8, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Laws to reduce gun violence and promote gun safety.”
Reproductive Health
United States v. Skrmetti
Twenty-four states have laws banning hormone therapy for transgender youth with gender dysphoria. Tennessee’s law, passed in 2023, prohibits gender-affirming care for youth under 18 including puberty blockers and gender-transition surgery if its purpose is to allow the young person to live an identity different from that assigned at birth. Kentucky enacted a similar law in 2023 over the governor’s veto. A group of transgender youth and their parents along with a doctor filed suit against the Tennessee law to reverse the ban. A district court judge ruled that those challenging the law did not have the right to challenge the gender-transition surgery ban since they did not indicate that they were seeking the surgery, but the judge put the other part of the law on hold while the case continued. The judge did, however, agree that the ban violated parents’ rights to seek medical treatment they deem appropriate for their children as well as the constitutional right to equal treatment given that some young people still had access to hormone therapy for other medical reasons. Meanwhile in Kentucky, a district court, responding to a suit against that state’s ban also brought by transgender youth and their parents, agreed with the plaintiffs but put the case on hold while it was on appeal. The Sixth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ rulings and reinstated the Tennessee and Kentucky bans. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the portion of the laws banning hormone treatment for gender dysphoria violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Oral Arguments: December 4, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Comprehensive, affordable, accessible, confidential, equitable, and quality health products and services, including abortion, gender-affirming, reproductive, maternal, and sexual health care.”
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
South Carolina has two Planned Parenthood centers which provide low-income Medicaid recipients with services such as physicals, pregnancy testing, and screenings for cancer and other health conditions. Federal law bars Medicaid from funding any abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. In 2018, the state’s governor ended Planned Parenthood’s participation in South Carolina’s Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood sued the state along with one of its patients, Julie Edwards, claiming that this policy violated the Medicaid law which gives participants the right to choose where to seek medical care covered under the law. A federal district court blocked the state from excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, and on appeal, the Fourth Circuit ruled that Edwards’ case could go forward. The state along with the anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case and decide whether Edwards and Planned Parenthood have a right to sue to enforce the Medicaid Act’s “any-qualified-provider” provision. Oral Arguments: TBD
Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that, “Every individual has the right to bodily autonomy and privacy, free from governmental, political, and religious interference in all health care decisions.” We support a strong and enforceable Medicaid Act, which established the joint state-federal Medicaid health insurance program for people with low incomes utilized by 1 in 5 people living in the United States.
Becerra v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires private insurers to cover certain preventive services without cost sharing. These services are determined by three agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The preventive services designated by those agencies include contraceptive coverage, HPV vaccines, and HIV prevention drugs. Four individuals and two Christian-based corporations in Texas challenged this mandatory coverage claiming it violated their religious beliefs and made them “complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” They filed suit in 2020 arguing that the structure of the agencies within HHS violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. A district court ruled in their favor regarding the Task Force but not ACIP and HRSA. The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the Task Force’s make up of 16 volunteer experts violates the Appointments Clause and called into question the other two agencies. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal which could determine the future of a vital part of the Affordable Care Act that provides important preventive services like contraception and HIV prevention treatment without cost to the patient.
Oral Arguments: TBD
Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports the ACA and advocated for a robust preventive care package including contraception, among other health care. And, NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Comprehensive, affordable, accessible, appropriate, confidential, equitable, and quality health products and services, inclusive of family planning, reproductive, sexual, and maternal health.”
Religion-State Separation
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industries Review Commission
In 2016, the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior, WI, which has four agencies that provide services to people with disabilities, sought an exemption from state unemployment taxes — an exemption offered to organizations that operate “primarily for religious purposes.” The Department of Workforce Development denied the exemption, but an administrative law judge reversed their decision. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) agreed with the denial of an exemption. In further court action, a state district and circuit court sided with Catholic Charities, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reinstated the LIRC decision, a move that was affirmed by the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that although the agencies were motivated by Catholic values, their activities were secular and not that no religious materials or content were involved in the services. The Catholic Charities asked the US Supreme Court to weigh in, contending that the case directly involves the First Amendment and “forces agencies and courts to second-guess the religious decisions of religious bodies.” Wisconsin claims that the state regularly denies tax exemptions to religious entities without entangling themselves in religious matters. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case which could have an impact in expanding the definition of what entities are considered ‘religious’ for purposes of adherence to generally applicable laws and policies.
Oral Arguments: TBD
Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that religious liberty and separation of religion and state are constitutional principles that must be protected and preserved. We have historically opposed efforts to circumvent civil rights, labor protections, and other important laws by taking advantage of religious exemptions.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School v. Drummond
Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports the First Amendment’s separation of religion and state and has long opposed using public tax dollars to fund secular, religious education.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Initially when the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved a series of LGBTQ inclusive storybooks for its English language arts curriculum in 2022, parents received prior notice and the ability to opt their children out from lessons using these books. In 2023, this policy was dropped. Although no reason was given at first, later the school board cited classroom disruption, administrative burden, and the potential for stigmatizing LGBTQ individuals as their justification. Several parents of various religious faiths sued the school board claiming that eliminating the notice and opt-out provision violated their religious freedom and parental rights. Notably, they did not argue to ban the books outright. A federal district court declined to issue an injunction and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the parents did not sufficiently demonstrate a burden to their religious freedom. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and decide whether public schools burden parents’ free exercise of religion rights when they compel elementary school students to participate in instruction related to gender and sexuality without the chance for parents to opt out.
Oral Arguments: TBD
Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that a democratic society must value and promote diversity, inclusion, mutual understanding, and respect for all. In addition, an educated and informed public is fundamental to a democratic society.
Civil Rights
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
Karyn Stanley, a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2016 but continued working until her disease forced her to retire from the job she held for more than 20 years. The city cut her retirement benefits after she retired. Stanley sued, citing the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) protection against discrimination based on disability. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that she could not sue under the ADA because she was no longer employed by the city. Three circuits around the country ruled the same way in similar cases although two others ruled in favor of the employees, citing the ADA was created to protect disabled workers. Based on this discrepancy across circuits, Stanley asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the ADA allows former employees to sue over discrimination in the provision of benefits earned while the workers were employed.
Oral Arguments: January 13, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW champions equal rights for all regardless of disability, among other characteristics. NCJW was active in advocating for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act and supports its important protections against discrimination.
Lackey v. Stinnie
In a case out of Virginia, Damian Stinnie had his drivers license suspended without the opportunity of a hearing — not uncommon in Virginia. Along with others, Stinnie sued the state under civil rights statutes saying the practice deprived them of due process. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, restoring the licenses. But before the case could go to trial, the Virginia state legislature repealed the law, and the court ruled that the case was moot. Under federal law, the “prevailing party” in civil rights cases are entitled to compensation to cover costs of the litigation. Stinnie and his co-plaintiffs petitioned the court for attorney’s fees given that they had prevailed by obtaining a preliminary injunction. However, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles fought the petition citing a decades-old Fourth Circuit holding that a grant of a preliminary injunction did not make a plaintiff the “prevailing party.” The plaintiffs were denied attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement of fees. The DMV appealed the case to the Supreme Court which will hear arguments. The results of this case could have a significant impact on whether individuals — often without means — will be able to seek judicial relief when their civil rights are violated.
Oral Arguments: October 8, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Equal rights and equitable opportunities for all people must be guaranteed, and all forms of discrimination must be eliminated.” Facilitating access to justice for those who may not be able to afford to seek redress from discrimination or in other cases of civil rights violations is critical to achieving equal rights.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
In 2014, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was promoted to Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at the Ohio Department of Youth Services where, in 2017, her new supervisor was gay. Two years later, Ames was turned down for a new position in the department, and her supervisor suggested that she retire. One month later, Ames was demoted, resulting in a significant pay cut shortly before a gay male colleague was promoted to the position Ames had wanted. This prompted Ames to file a discrimination charge as well as a suit against her department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex. It is unusual for someone in the majority to sue under Title VII. The district court found that Ames did not show ‘background circumstances’ that would prove the employer’s pattern of discrimination. The Sixth Circuit agreed, and now the Supreme Court will hear the case and decide whether a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group needs to demonstrate “background circumstances suggesting that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This ‘reverse discrimination case’ could have ramifications more broadly on protections against workplace discrimination.
Oral Arguments: February 26, 2025
Why We’re Watching: NCJW has long supported Title VII as essential to protecting equal employment rights and as a strong tool against discrimination in the workplace, which must not be weakened.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
This case concerns a student whose epilepsy is so severe in the morning that she cannot attend school until the afternoon. A.J.T’s parents asked the Osseo Area Schools in Minnesota to provide evening instruction so that their daughter would have a school day that was as long as that of her classmates. The school district did provide some accommodations such as one-on-one instruction, a slightly longer school day, and summer home instruction but would not agree to extending the school day into the evening. The parents sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disability Act but the district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found for the school board. The Eighth Circuit said the parents had to show that the school district acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgement.” The US Supreme Court, in taking up the appeal, will decide whether this standard applies or if a less rigorous standard may be used.
Oral Arguments: TBD
Why We’re Watching: NCJW has long supported the Americans With Disabilities Act as well as education for students with disabilities that is the least restrictive.
Economic Justice
E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera
Faustino Carrera and two other workers sued E.M.D. Sales, a DC-area food distributor, for failure to pay overtime when they worked more than a 40-hour workweek. E.M.D. argued that the employees were “outside salesmen” and therefore were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the law that mandated overtime pay. The employees argued that they did not make sales but instead were tasked with managing inventory, stocking and restocking shelves, removing expired products, and issuing credits to stores. A district court ruled that E.M.D. Sales did not prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the employees were exempt — a decision upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court on appeal. E.M.D. appealed to the Supreme Court asking them to establish that employers in the Fourth Circuit need only show a “preponderance of the evidence” to prove that employees were exempt from the FLSA. The Fourth Circuit is the only circuit that applies this heightened burden of proof to employers.
Oral Arguments: November 5, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports laws, policies, and programs that ensure fair pay. NCJW works to ensure the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act as a means of establishing and enforcing fairness and dignity for workers.