Sept. 2, 2025 – The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest term in July with a flurry of headline-grabbing rulings, involving questions of birthright citizenship, parental rights, workplace protections, and voting rights. University of Houston Law Center’s faculty shared their insights about the most important cases to help the public understand their impact.
“This term was packed with rulings that affect not just the legal landscape, but everyday lives,” said UH Law Dean Leonard M. Baynes, who hosted the virtual CLE seminar and moderated the roundtable discussion.
Five cases dominated the session, each touching issues that have ignited passionate debates well beyond the courtroom.
Birthright citizenship and the reach of federal courts
Foundation Professor Seth Chandler examined Trump v. CASA, a challenge to the presidential executive order limiting birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, the justices sidestepped the constitutional question, instead striking down the use of “universal injunctions” by lower courts.
“The fact of being born physically in the United States entitled you to United States citizenship, regardless of whether your parents were lawfully here or temporarily here. President Trump challenged that,” Chandler explained. “The court did not address whether that restriction on birthright citizenship was permissible under the 14th Amendment … They punted on that rather important issue.”
Chandler explained that universal injunctions are nationwide court orders that block enforcement of federal policies beyond the plaintiffs in a case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion, rooted in the 1789 Judiciary Act and the precedent of Grupo Mexicano, narrowed federal courts’ equitable powers to those closely analogous to those recognized at the nation’s founding.
“She froze the equitable powers, since in her judgment, there was no founding era analog to a universal injunction,” Chandler said. “She rejected the notion that equity itself embraced the idea of flexibility and adaptability.”
While class action suits may remain a valid path to challenge federal policies, Chandler noted the challenges with the procedure.
“The story is not done yet,” Chandler said, noting that post-Trump v. CASA regulations have been issued trying to clarify what the executive order means. “USCIS has issued regulations taking a very broad view of who is only temporarily present - DACA recipients, [Temporary Protected Status] holders, even people protected under the Convention Against Torture…their children aren’t citizens.”
He noted that the USCIS regulations will require people who think "well, I'm obviously a U.S. citizen" to actually prove that when their child is born.
Parental rights in classrooms
Professor David R. Dow analyzed Mahmoud v. Taylor, which arose from a Maryland school district’s reversal of a policy letting families opt children out of lessons featuring LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary classrooms. Parents sued, and with another 6-3 decision, the Court sided with them. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.
Dow highlighted three key themes in the case. First, the Court addressed religious accommodation, extending protections historically given to conscientious objectors and applying them to the context of public education. Second, the Court, reaffirmed parents’ longstanding authority to control their children’s upbringing and education. And third, the case reflected cultural tensions over LGBTQ+ inclusion, highlighting the challenges in balancing anti-discriminatory protection with religious and parental claims.
“On both of the first two themes, the Supreme Court is not really doing anything unpredictable or radical in Mahmoud v. Taylor,” Dow said. “The third theme is a new issue…when it comes to the application of the Free Exercise Clause to this new domain - LGBTQ+ issues - it is potentially extremely significant and could replicate itself in additional contexts in the coming years.”
Transgender health care bans
Assistant Professor Laura Portuondo broke down United States v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, even with parental approval. The reason given for the ban was concern for the health and well-being of the children and that the state was stepping in to protect the children.
Three transgender minors, their parents and a physician argued the ban violated the Equal Protection Clause. But the justices disagreed in a 6-3 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion upholding the ban.
“The court’s decision affirmed the law does not classify based on sex or transgender status and satisfies rational basis review,” Portuondo said. “This is part of a broader trend across the country, with states - and increasingly the federal government - passing restrictions on gender-affirming care.”
Portuondo, a constitutional law scholar with expertise in reproductive rights, said the ruling could narrow the scope of sex equality doctrine, potentially affecting future legal challenges involving medical regulations and reproductive health.
“Think about reproductive rights here. Is it going to be the case that the court might start pointing to other supposed physiological differences between men and women, and saying, if there's a physical difference… we're not going to scrutinize those laws?” she said. “There's some evidence in this decision to support that possibility.”
She added that states may find it easier to justify restrictive laws as protecting women. Unresolved questions, about the protected status for transgender individuals, parental rights, and adult access to gender-affirming care, leave room for future challenges.
Reverse discrimination in the workplace
Professor Emily Berman discussed Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that tested whether plaintiffs from majority groups face higher burdens in discrimination claims.
A female employee argued she was discriminated against because she was heterosexual when she was denied promotion and later demoted in favor of LGBTQ+ candidates. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had required majority-group plaintiffs to satisfy “heightened evidentiary burdens” in such cases.
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that approach. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion, ruling such plaintiffs must meet the same standards as others under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“Discrimination is discrimination,” she said, adding that while the case fell under Title VII, the same principle is likely to extend to constitutional cases, where the Court has repeatedly emphasized that the Equal Protection Clause protects the rights of individuals, not just specific groups.
“The plaintiff has to establish a prima facie showing the defendant acted with discriminatory motive,” said Berman, explaining the decision. “The burden then shifts to the defendant to offer a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for the employment action.”
According to Berman there are three things to note about this opinion: First, the Court unanimously reaffirmed Bostock v. Clayton County, making clear that discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender employees is sex discrimination under Title VII. Second, it confirmed that members of majority groups are also protected by the statute, even if that wasn’t Congress’s original focus. And third, Justice Thomas used his concurrence to question the continued reliance on the McDonnell Douglas framework — a test courts use in employment discrimination cases to evaluate claims when there is no direct evidence of bias — arguing that it is a judge-made doctrine that may be inappropriate in certain contexts.
Berman said the Ames decision reflects the Court’s stance on discrimination: one that leans toward a colorblind and gender-neutral interpretation of the law.
Voting rights on hold
Assistant Professor David Froomkin reviewed Louisiana v. Callais, a redistricting case with broad implications under the Voting Rights Act for redistricting cases nationwide. The court delayed a decision, ordering arguments to resume in the next term.
“We’re talking about the application of the Voting Rights Act to redistricting, to a state’s drawing of electoral maps that will be used in elections,” Froomkin said. “The premise of the Voting Rights Act was that it’s important to prevent states from depriving racial minority groups of political representation through their districting decisions.”
He emphasized that the law focuses on outcomes (“results test”) rather than proving intentional discrimination, because showing intent is often difficult and administratively complicated. He also noted that recent signs suggest a majority of the Supreme Court may be growing skeptical of this approach, which could significantly affect the law’s enforcement.
The UH Law discussion coincided with the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Acts, giving Froomkin an opportunity to provide some historical context. He pointed to Shelby County v. Holder (2013), in which the Court struck down the Section 5 preclearance formula that had blocked discriminatory voting changes before they took effect. The Court cited Section 2 as a fallback, but Froomkin said it’s far less effective because it requires lengthy litigation after changes are implemented.
“In many ways, Section 5 was a more robust mechanism for protecting minority voting rights, because it applied this preclearance regime that prevented retrogression before it occurred,” Froomkin said. “Section 2 is a reactive mechanism that requires parties to initiate a lawsuit in response to changes that have already taken place.”
The Court’s reargument in the 2025-2026 term, starting in October, will address a larger question: whether intentionally creating majority-minority districts could itself violate the 14th or 15th Amendments, raising the possibility of a challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Legal scholars and others will be watching closely because the Court’s decision could determine not just the future of Louisiana’s districts, but how states approach redistricting and how federal courts handle minority voting rights nationwide.
