Supreme Court 2025: Important cases to follow on TikTok, freedom of speech, guns and more

While the cases may lack the appeal of the last term’s decisions on presidential immunity and administrative authorityThe results of several cases before the court in the second half of its 2024-25 term will redefine jurisprudence on matters ranging from culture war conflicts to regulations entrenched in Washington.

PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS ELECTS NEW LEADERS TO FIGHT GOP TRIFECTA

Here’s a look at the cases before the judges this year:

TikTok and national security

The justices will hear arguments Jan. 10 on a law that would ban tiktok nationwide unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, divests its U.S. operations. Proponentsincluding Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), argue that the app represents a “clear threat to national security” and claim that the Chinese Communist Party exerts influence over US data and content.

TikTok, however, maintains that the ban would be an unprecedented restriction on expression and would affect its 170 million American users. The case is set to address the intersection of technology, national security and free speech.

Does the First Amendment preclude age verification laws for pornography?

On January 15, the Supreme Court will weigh in on a Texas law require websites to verify users’ ages before granting access to adult content in a case known as Free Speech Coalition against Paxton. Supporters argue that the measure protects minors from harmful exposure, citing studies that link early exposure to pornography with negative social and psychological outcomes.

Critics, including pornography providers, say the law infringes on the rights of adults. First Amendment rights and imposes undue burdens on platforms. The case could set a precedent for how courts balance free speech with child protection in the digital age.

‘MY WORD AS BIDEN’: JOE DAMAGES PUBLIC TRUST WITH FLIP-FLOP HUNTER PARDON

Weapons manufacturer liability

On March 4, the court will hear Smith & Wesson Brands v. United Mexican States, a case brought by Mexico that seeks to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for violence fueled by illegal firearms smuggling. The lawsuit challenges the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, arguing that gun manufacturers knowingly benefited from criminal markets.

This case could redefine the scope of gun manufacturers’ liability and has broad implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Religious freedom and tax exemptions

The Supreme Court will address later this year whether the Office of Catholic Charities can opt out of Wisconsin’s unemployment program after the state Supreme Court recently told the group that its ministry was not religious enough.

Catholic Charities, which operates under the Diocese of Superior and offers programs for the disabled, elderly and impoverished, claims that providing care to those in need, regardless of their faith, is an integral part of its Catholic religious mission.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the activities of Catholic Charities are not inherently religious because they serve and employ non-Catholics and make no “attempt to imbue the Catholic faith in program participants,” noting that the group provides services that could be offered in a similar way. by secular organizations.

As a result of that decision, Wisconsin required the group to pay into the state’s unemployment compensation system and denied it the ability to join the Catholic Bishops of Wisconsin’s own unemployment compensation system. according to the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom, a nonprofit firm handling the case.

BIDEN’S ‘TRUMP-PROOF’ FOREIGN POLICY REVOLVES AROUND UKRAINE AND NATO

Catholic Charities is asking the Supreme Court to determine that its charitable conduct is religious enough to qualify for the tax exemption.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

A spring hearing will address Whether states can restrict where Medicaid funds go Planned Parenthood in Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantica case that determines whether states can prevent abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds.

The dispute began in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order excluding abortion clinics from Medicaid reimbursements. Planned Parenthood challenged the order, resulting in federal courts twice restoring the organization’s funding, even after the Supreme Court ordered a reconsideration based on a 2022 precedent.

Representing South Carolina, Alliance Defending Freedom contends that federal Medicaid statutes do not allow beneficiaries to sue states over provider qualifications. ADF attorneys have emphasized that taxpayer dollars should not fund abortion providers and have defended states’ rights to set requirements for Medicaid.

Planned Parenthood says the case could limit access to essential health care for Medicaid recipients. Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the case threatens patients’ ability to choose their health care providers, while Jenny Black, president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, criticized it as a motivated attack. policy to Medicaid patients’ access to services. such as cancer screenings and contraceptives.

THE BIGGEST COMEBACK? This is how Trump positions himself in White House history

Decisions to watch

The Supreme Court has already weighed several high-profile cases in the early part of its term, with decisions that could be released in the coming months until the term ends at the end of June.

Some of those cases include:

1. Ghost guns and electronic cigarettes: Rulings expected in late June on cases related to Biden administration regulation untraceable firearms and flavored electronic cigarettes.

2. Non-delegation doctrine: The magistrates will address whether Congress delegated excessive authority to the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund, possibly reviving a doctrine that limits the power of the executive agency.

3. Environmental policy: In a trio of cases, judges will decide where challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s actions under the Clean Air Act should be filed: regional courts or the D.C. Circuit.

4. Transgender treatments for minors: Justices are weighing whether to uphold a Tennessee law banning transgender procedures for minors, a case that questions whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment precludes the measure.