What to Expect from the Supreme Court in 2025

After three consecutive blockbuster terms for the U.S. Supreme Court—during which the Court’s 6-3 constitutionalist majority overturned Roe v. Wade, gutted the “Chevron deference” doctrine, declared that race-based college admissions are unconstitutional, and delivered several major victories for religious liberty, among other major rulings—all eyes are once again on the High Court in 2025 as it prepares to hand down yet another slate of high-profile decisions in June.

Here are three potentially landmark decisions expected this summer.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Among the more notable cases the Supreme Court will weigh in on this term is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which deals with a Texas law that requires adult websites to verify users’ ages before granting them access.

Proponents of the legislation, most notably among them Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argue the measure is a necessary safeguard against the increasing exposure of minors to pornography and other explicit online content, which Texas contends constitutes a public health crisis. Others, meanwhile, insist the law imposes unconstitutional barriers to “protected speech.”

Passed in 2023, the Texas legislation mandates that websites where one-third or more of the content is deemed “harmful to minors” must implement measures like ID verification to better ensure only adults access that content.

While Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson asserts this approach is a logical extension of protections upheld in the landmark Ginsberg v. New York case, which holds that states can constitutionally restrict young people’s access to explicit content, challengers argue it goes too far. The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult film industry, maintains that the law restricts lawful access to such content by adults and fails to pass constitutional muster under strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review.

The justices heard oral arguments in the case on January 15, during which they appeared divided over the constitutionality of the Texas law. “Some justices seemed to agree with the challengers… that a federal appeals court in New Orleans should have applied a more stringent test to determine whether the law violates the First Amendment,” SCOTUSblog reported. “But even that ruling might prove to be only a limited victory for the challengers in the short term.”

Ultimately, the Court’s decision will likely extend far beyond the Lone Star State and could have the power to reshape how states balance child protection with First Amendment claims. With arguments grounded in competing visions of judicial scrutiny and the evolution of technology, the outcome could yield lasting implications for finding a balance between free speech and online safety.

Garland v. VanDerStok

This summer, the justices are set to issue a ruling in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case that could shape the future of American firearm regulation. At the center of the case is a 2022 rule from Joe Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) aimed at curbing the proliferation of so-called “ghost guns.” These firearms without serial numbers, often sold as easily assembled kits, have been a growing concern for law enforcement. The ATF argues that regulating ghost guns under the Gun Control Act of 1968 is necessary to close a loophole that allows felons and other prohibited individuals to obtain firearms without undergoing background checks.

Challengers to the rule, including gun owners and manufacturers, contend that the ATF has overstepped its authority—suggesting that Congress never intended the Gun Control Act to cover partially complete frames or receivers, or to apply to kits sold as components. The ATF, however, insists that these kits fall within the law’s definition of a “firearm” because they can be readily converted into functioning weapons. Critics, meanwhile, warn that such an interpretation would blur the line between what constitutes a firearm and what does not, which would make many responsible gun owners liable for criminal penalties.

After the Court’s October oral arguments, according to SCOTUSblog, the justices “appeared ready to uphold” the Biden regulation—which could further define the balance of power between the federal government’s regulatory power and the Second Amendment.

United States v. Skrmetti

In early December, the High Court heard oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging a Tennessee law that bans so-called “gender-affirming care” for children. The Tennessee law, enacted in 2023, prohibits doctors from providing hormone treatments, gender “transition” surgeries, and other “treatments” and procedures embraced by the gender ideology movement for Tennesseans under the age of 18.

The challengers in the case, who were joined by the Biden administration, have argued that the “legal uncertainty” surrounding gender-altering drugs and procedures “is creating chaos across the country for adolescents, families, and doctors.”

But on December 4th, the High Court’s conservative majority appeared poised to uphold the Tennessee law and protect children from dangerous and unnecessary transgender “treatments.”

The Court’s Republican-appointed justices indicated that the High Court has no role in adjudicating the matter of “gender” treatment—leaving the availability of “transgender”-affirming drugs and procedures up to state legislatures.

“The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Chief Justice John Roberts stated. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed: “The Constitution doesn’t take sides on how to resolve the medical and policy debate. The Constitution is neutral on the question.”

Based on December’s oral arguments, if Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett rule to uphold the law, which they appeared poised to do, the Court would deliver a landmark ruling on behalf of children, parents, and families everywhere who have fallen victim to the pernicious lies of “gender-affirming care” peddled by the gender ideology movement.

Regardless of how the Court ultimately rules in each of these cases and others on its docket this term, one thing remains certain: with the Court’s constitutionalist majority—bolstered by Donald Trump’s three appointees with the potential for an even larger majority over the next four years—the conservative legal movement remains in a once-in-a-generation position to advance some of the legal right’s most cherished priorities.

Aaron Flanigan is a contributor to AMAC Newsline.