The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to deliver major rulings on a set of key cases on topics including but not limited to religion and education; discrimination and LGBTQIA+ rights; communication and government regulation; and health care and environmental regulation.

As the high court prepares to issue rulings on these cases, Michigan State University experts are available to explain many of these cases and discuss the implications of the rulings.

Religion and education

Case: Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission on the topic of tax exemptions for church-affiliated groups under the First Amendment

Frank Ravitch is a professor of law and the Walter H. Stowers Chair of Law and Religion, as well as the director of the Kyoto Japan Program at the MSU College of Law. He is an expert on the intersection of law and religion and how the Supreme Court views religious clauses in the First Amendment.
Contact: fravitch@law.msu.edu

“In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the denial of an exemption to unemployment taxes for Catholic Charities. The court held that Catholic Charities is not operated “primarily for religious purposes” so is not entitled to a religious exemption available under Wisconsin law. Catholic Charities is arguing that serving the community is part of the church’s religious mission and that the state cannot decide what counts as ‘primarily religious’ in a manner that separates activities pursued for religious reasons from more formal worship and religious practices. Catholic Charities will almost certainly win this case and likely would have under pre-2020 law as well.”

Case: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond on the topic of publicly funded religious schools. The justice delivered a ruling for this case on May 22, 2025, remaining deadlocked due to a justice recusing herself.

Josh Cowen is a professor of education policy at the College of Education and previously directed the Education Policy Innovative Collective. He is an expert on issues relating to school choice, teacher quality and evaluations of local and state education programs.
Contact: jcowen@msu.edu

“Charter schools are public schools. So what’s at stake in this case is whether we’re going to have church-run public schools in this country. I want to be very clear that as a Christian man, the problem with this in my view is not religion per se. It’s that a particular religious organization (in this case a Catholic provider) would be receiving taxpayer dollars to literally run a public school. That wouldn’t just weaken the wall between church and state, but in fact bulldoze right through it.

“In that sense, such a ruling by SCOTUS would go even further than modern school voucher schemes, which basically treat religious private schools as outside contractors for a public service (education), while remaining private contractors. But if SCOTUS rules in favor of the Oklahoma Catholic charter school, what they’re saying is that a public school can be overtly a religious entity and that an overtly religious entity can be a public school.”

Frank Ravitch is a professor of law and the Walter H. Stowers Chair of Law and Religion, as well as the director of the Kyoto Japan Program at the MSU College of Law. He is an expert on the intersection of law and religion and how the Supreme Court views religious clauses in the First Amendment.
Contact: fravitch@law.msu.edu

“Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond involve whether the Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board can approve a religious charter school. The Oklahoma attorney general successfully argued to the Oklahoma courts that because charter schools are expressly public schools under the Oklahoma charter school law, there cannot be a religious charter school. The religious charter school and the virtual charter school board brought the case to the United States Supreme Court, which surprisingly agreed to hear the case.

“Normally the court would have declined to hear the case because it was decided primarily under Oklahoma law. The case now will be decided based on whether denying the religious charter school a charter school contract is discrimination in violation of the United States Constitution. The answer should be a clear “no” even under the court’s recent decision to mandate the state of Maine provide vouchers to religious private schools if it does so for secular private schools. That case also clearly explained that it did not involve public schools, which would be different. The current court has expanded what counts as discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause beyond any reasonable boundaries, so it is hard to know what the court will do in this case.”

Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor on the topic of parents’ ability to remove children from K-12 classes or course material on gender and sexuality

Frank Ravitch is a professor of law and the Walter H. Stowers Chair of Law and Religion, as well as the director of the Kyoto Japan Program at the MSU College of Law. He is an expert on the intersection of law and religion and how the Supreme Court views religious clauses in the First Amendment.
Contact: fravitch@law.msu.edu

“In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a few parents sued the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board after it stopped providing notice and an opt-out option for parents who do not want their children to participate in lessons that include LGBTQIA+-themed storybooks. The books were included as part of the language arts classes. The parents argue that they should be given the option to opt their children out of that part of the curriculum because the exposure to LGBTQIA+ themes violates their religious tenets. The school board is arguing that notice and opt-out options are unworkable given the way these books are integrated into the curriculum and taught at different times by different teachers. It is likely the parents will win this case.”

Heather Johnson is an adjunct professor of law at the MSU College of Law where they are an expert on issues at the intersection of gender, sexuality, education and law.
Contact: john1981@msu.edu

“On April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments from a group of Maryland parents who claim that not being provided with the ability to opt their elementary children out of instruction that may include materials with LGBTQ+ themes violates their religious beliefs and, therefore, their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.

“The case centered around two books that feature LGBTQ+ characters that may be used in the language arts curriculum. One book depicts a story of an elementary aged girl who attends the wedding of her same-sex uncle, and another book tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. The parents argue that they should be notified by the school district anytime a LGBTQ+-themed text is used in classroom instruction. The school district argues that in designing an inclusive curriculum that reflects the diversity of the students and families in the district that exposing children to storybooks has not compelled parents to violate their religion. The school board further claims that offering an opt-out provision would not be feasible to plan for space, supervision and alternate instruction.

“Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett seem poised to rule in favor of the parents because teaching the content of the book may amount to more than exposure to an idea rather than the presentation of fact. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson voiced skepticism in the chilling effect this ruling would have on the selection of texts that represent the lived experience of a diverse community of individuals and where the line would be drawn on opt-out provisions. Justice Jackson asked if a parent could opt-out of having their child placed in the classroom of a gay teacher who has a picture of their same-sex wedding in the classroom? In deciding this case, the Supreme Court will need to identify the key question about when a parent can opt out and if there is a way to accommodate an inclusive curriculum and exposure to different ideas that may be contrary to the religious beliefs of the parents.”

Discrimination and protections

Case: Louisiana v. Callais on the topic of voting rights and gerrymandering in Louisiana

Quinn Yeargain is the 1855 Professor of the Law of Democracy and an associate professor of law at the College of Law. They are an expert in constitutional and criminal law, including the relationship between democracy and legal developments.
Contact: yeargain@law.msu.edu

“These cases involve a challenge to Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, a Black-majority congressional district that was drawn in response to a Voting Rights Act lawsuit over the legality of Louisiana’s congressional maps. A quick visual assessment of the district, which stretches from Baton Rouge in southern Louisiana to Shreveport in the northwest, would suggest to most casual observers that it’s an oddly shaped district. There are a variety of questions that this case implicates — like whether race was the predominant factor in drawing the district and how much deference to afford the state legislature in its decision to draw the district.

“However, the case is being watched for a far broader question: Will the court continue to undermine the Voting Rights Act? Since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the court has repeatedly limited the reach of the VRA. Lower courts around the country have gone even further in that respect. It’s possible that the court will answer the relatively narrow questions presented in these cases, but it could go a lot further — and gut the VRA.”

Heather Johnson is an adjunct professor of law at the MSU College of Law where they are an expert on issues at the intersection of gender, sexuality, education and law.
Contact: john1981@msu.edu

Case: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services on the topic of alleged discrimination against nonminority Americans

“Marlean Ames applied for a new position in 2019 but was not successful in her application. Soon after, she was demoted to a previous job — taking a significant pay cut — where she earned just over half of her previous hourly rate of pay. Ames, a straight white woman, contends that she was passed over for the promotion because she was not gay. The administrator that took her job when she was demoted was a gay man and the woman who earned the promotion for the position she applied for initially was also gay. Ames contends that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation as a straight woman.

“In a traditional Title VII discrimination, the plaintiff must show they are a member of a protected class (race, religion, sex, etc.), qualified for the position, experienced an adverse employment action, and that individuals outside their protected class that are similarly situated were treated differently. A traditional Title VII discrimination claim requires a minimum level of proof to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once evidence of a claim is provided, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. However, because Ames is a member of the majority group as a straight white woman, her claim is considered a reverse discrimination claim. The 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and D.C. circuit courts require the plaintiff to demonstrate a higher standard of proof by with “background circumstances” to support the suspicion of discrimination when a plaintiff brining a claim of discrimination is a member of the majority group.

“Background circumstances can include the selection of a candidate that was clearly unqualified for the job requirements, evidence that the decision-maker was biased against the majority group, or evidence that the employer had a history of discrimination against the majority group. The 3rd or 11th circuit courts have rejected the heightened standard of showing background circumstances.

“In this case, the decision-makers — the people who hired a different candidate for the job that would represent a promotion and the people who demoted her — were also straight. The 6th Circuit Court threw out the claim of discrimination on sexual orientation because Ames could not show that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision. The 6th Circuit Court also found she could not show a pattern of reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court with its decision in this case will have the opportunity to resolve the different rules applied between circuit courts and weigh in on the standard or test that should be used to evaluate discrimination claims brought by members of the majority group.”

Case: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 on the topic of protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973

“A.J.T. is a student with severe epilepsy that is unable to function at school during the morning. She attended elementary school in Kentucky, where the school accommodated her by providing instruction in the evening, so she received the same number of hours as her peers. However, when A.J.T.’s family moved to Minnesota, the school refused to accommodate her, offering her only three hours of instruction each day.

“The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act obligates all school districts to provide ‘free appropriate public education’ to children with disabilities. The courts easily held that Minnesota schools failed to provide an ‘appropriate’ education. However, the circuit courts do not agree on what the plaintiff must show to recover damages if they can show ‘intentional discrimination.’ Most of the lower courts use the ‘deliberate indifference standard’ modeled off the standard for Title IX of the Civil Rights Act for discrimination claims pertaining to individuals with disabilities that are not students.

“However, a problem arises when a student seeks relief under the discrimination statutes. Two circuits, the 3rd and 9th circuit courts treat children with disabilities bringing education-related claims just like everyone else. But five circuit courts including the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and D.C. circuits have a special rule for students requiring them to show a higher standard — one of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ unlike other ADA and Rehabilitation Act plaintiffs. In the present case, the 8th Circuit Court did not award damages finding that the ‘deliberate indifference’ of the school district to A.J.T.’s education did not rise to the level of ‘bad faith’ required under the antidiscrimination statutes.

“Current actions by the Trump administration to diminish the Department of Education’s workforce by nearly half with the goal being able to eliminate the Office of Civil Rights staff that investigate and remediate claims of discrimination in schools complicate the possibility of plaintiffs realizing relief in cases of discrimination against disabled students. A holding by the Supreme Court to require disabled schoolchildren to show a higher standard of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ will further hinder or threaten disabled student’s access to education.”

Case: Perttu v. Richards on prisoners’ rights to a jury trial

Bradley Hall is the interim director of the Public Defender Clinic at the College of Law. He has an extensive background advocating for indigent criminal defendants.
Contact: bhall@law.msu.edu

“In Hewitt v. United States and Duffey v. United States, the United States Supreme Court is considering the reach of two provisions in the First Step Act (FSA), a landmark sentencing reform passed in 2018. The case boils down to a question of grammar, and what Congress intended by its use of the present-perfect tense to describe past offenders who are eligible for more lenient punishments. Sections 401(c) and 403(b) reduce the mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and firearms offenses. As a general rule, legislation of this nature will apply to offenses that occur after the date of enactment unless Congress says otherwise. Here, Congress extended the lower sentencing provisions “to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment . . . if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.

“There is no question that the law applies to individuals who committed an offense prior to the FSA and were still awaiting initial sentencing when the statute was passed. But what about individuals who committed an offense years ago, were sentenced before the FSA, and then their sentence was vacated for reasons unrelated to the FSA (such as an appeal)? In a literal sense, a sentence “has been imposed” on those individuals. But when the sentence became inoperative, it would also be accurate to say a sentence “has not been imposed.” The Supreme Court must determine what Congress had in mind for this specific category of defendants.”

Communication and government regulation

Case: Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton on the topic of age verification laws for pornography

Karen Holt is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the College of Social Science. She is an expert on sexual deviance and issues involving pornography, and she focuses her research on offenders of sexual violence.
Contact: holtkar1@msu.edu

“Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton represents a continuing tension between protecting children from potential online harm while upholding First Amendment rights. There is mixed, inconclusive evidence that these policies will have the desired effect. Rather, age verification laws may have unintended consequences that can do more harm than good. Age verification mechanisms may lead some to find alternate routes to access pornography, whether through overcoming restrictions or visiting sites that have unregulated content. While well-intentioned, these laws do not address the core issues behind the reasons youth access pornography — one being curiosity about sex.

“Today, youth need evidence-based sexual education and sexual abuse prevention with a component that addresses online sexual behavior and safety. Age verification laws alone will not offset this issue. Porn is ubiquitous, and the ability to self-generate sexual content is constant; those who will be harmed are the most vulnerable of the youth population, who are pushed toward the fringes and marginalized. Deterrent policy alone is set up to fail if it is not accompanied by difficult but critical conversations about sexuality.”

Case: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch on an attempt by the IRS to assess a levy on unpaid taxes

Christina Wease is the director of the Alvin L. Storrs Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic at the MSU College of Law, where she supervises students working on cases in the clinic. She is an expert on issues relating to tax law and policy.
Contact: cwease@law.msu.edu

“In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch, the court seeks to determine whether a dispute regarding an IRS proposed levy under IRC section 6330 becomes moot when the underlying liability is paid in full. Section 6330 gives the taxpayer a right to request a hearing before a levy. If the court finds that the Tax Court loses jurisdiction once the underlying tax liability is paid, the results will be costly for taxpayers. In Zuch, the taxpayer disputes she owes a tax liability; she argues she is due a refund. While appealing the IRS’s attempt to levy her assets, the underlying liability was paid in full by the IRS’s offsets of later year refunds. Once the underlying liability was paid, the IRS argued the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction and cannot rule on any other issues. The IRS argues further that if the Tax Court retains jurisdiction after the liability is paid, it would undermine Section 6330’s narrow scope.  

“The U.S. Tax Court is one of limited jurisdiction. However, Zuch argues that IRC 6330 gives the Tax Court authority to review all determinations made during a Collection Due Process hearing, rather than the levy action itself. Further, Zuch argues that the IRS should not be able to circumvent Section 6330 by finding another way to take the taxpayer’s money. If the court rules in favor of the IRS, the effect on taxpayers could be significant. A ruling for the IRS means that the IRS can avert Tax Court review by satisfying the liability through seized refunds. If a taxpayer wanted to dispute a tax debt, but the IRS applies a refund before the taxpayer can file an appeal, the taxpayer has lost the right to appeal to Tax Court. There are other avenues of appeal — U.S. district courts have refund jurisdiction — but those appeals are far more costly for taxpayers.”

Health care

Heather Johnson is an adjunct professor of law at the MSU College of Law where they are an expert on issues at the intersection of gender, sexuality, education and law.
Contact: john1981@msu.edu

Case: United States v. Skrmetti on the topic of blocking hormone treatment for transgender Americans who are minors

“The Supreme Court has taken up the question of gender-affirming care after the 6th Circuit rejected requests from families and medical providers to block laws in Tennessee and Kentucky that ban such care. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court will consider the ban targeting hormone therapies (hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers), but not surgical care. The case was argued on Dec. 4, 2024, by the United States Department of Justice under the Biden administration. Then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the ban is a clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status, because allowing a doctor to prescribe testosterone to a cisgender teenage boy for any clinical diagnosis but not allowing the doctor to do the same for a transgender boy diagnosed with gender dysphoria, would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The lack of exposure and understanding to the history of discrimination faced by the trans/LGBTQ+ community was on display during the oral argument when Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh questioned if trans people faced de jure discrimination (or discrimination by law). Chase Strangio, the first known trans person to argue before the Supreme Court, was able to answer questions about the long history of discrimination by law including cross-dressing laws targeting trans people, laws banning trans people from military service, and laws banning bathroom access. Barrett admitted that she never knew about the long history of de jure discrimination against trans people.

“The 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals have allowed these bans to take effect. If the Supreme Court finds that states can ban medical treatment for trans youth with gender dysphoria, then existing laws banning gender-affirming care will stand and other jurisdictions could also adopt similar bans. Anti-trans legislation has been proposed 886 times by Republican lawmakers in 49 states this legislative term to block trans people from receiving basic health care, legal recognition, participate in education and to legally exist. A ruling in favor of banning medical treatment by the Supreme Court will also likely hinder the litigation challenging recent executive orders renewing the bans against trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming citizens to access bathrooms, participate in sports, have accurate federal identification, be protected by Title IX and serve in the military.”

Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic on the topic of abortions being covered under the Medicaid Act

Sean Valles is an associate professor and director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Justice, with appointments in the colleges of Human Medicine, Arts and Letters and Lyman Briggs. He is an expert on issues relating to health ethics and how social contexts create health inequities and disparities.
Contact: valles@msu.edu

“South Carolina is using Medicaid enrollees as pawns in an effort to financially harm Planned Parenthood because it offers legal abortion health care among its services. Federal law already severely restricts paying for abortion health care using Medicaid funds. This case is testing whether Medicaid patients can sue the government for depriving them of their legal right to get cervical cancer screenings, HIV testing and other non-abortion health care from any qualified provider. South Carolina’s effort is a classic example of a strategy called Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP. This strategy creates arbitrary government red tape to make legal abortion health care harder to access. By using Medicaid as a weapon against Planned Parenthood, South Carolina is unethically restricting health care access for only its most vulnerable residents.”

Jennifer Carter-Johnson is an associate professor of law and the associate dean for academic affairs at the College of Law. She is an expert on issues relating to intellectual property, food and drug regulation, and bioethics, investigating the intersection of biological research and the law.
Contact: jcj@law.msu.edu

"Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is a Supreme Court case that examines whether Medicaid beneficiaries have a "private right of action" to sue a state that attempts to block them from receiving care at a "qualified" provider, such as Planned Parenthood. The case originated from a 2018 executive order by South Carolina's governor that sought to terminate abortion clinics from the state's Medicaid program, deeming them "unqualified" providers. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid beneficiary, Julie Edwards, sued the state, arguing that the order violated the Medicaid Act's "free-choice-of-provider" provision, which allows beneficiaries to choose any qualified provider. The lower courts, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, had repeatedly sided with Planned Parenthood, affirming that Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to enforce this provision. The core legal question for the Supreme Court is whether the specific language of the Medicaid Act unambiguously grants individuals this enforceable right.

The impact of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic on abortion access, and broader reproductive healthcare, could be significant. While the case technically focuses on the ability of Medicaid beneficiaries to sue, it is deeply rooted in efforts by anti-abortion policymakers to defund and exclude Planned Parenthood from state Medicaid programs. If the Supreme Court rules that Medicaid beneficiaries do not have a private right of action, it would give states greater latitude to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood based on political objections, even if those providers offer a wide range of essential, non-abortion services like contraception, cancer screenings, and STI treatment. This could severely limit access to care for low-income individuals, disproportionately affecting women and people of color who rely on Medicaid and Planned Parenthood for their healthcare needs, regardless of whether they seek abortion services.”

Case: Kennedy (formerly Becerra) v. Braidwood Management Inc. on the topic of the Affordable Care Act covering preventative health care procedures

Leonard Fleck is a University Distinguished Professor in the College of Arts and Letters and College of Human Medicine. He is an expert in health care ethics, specifically for issues relating to health care justice, health care rationing and health care policy.
Contact: fleck@msu.edu

“What is at stake in this case is that 150 million Americans could potentially lose guaranteed access to life-saving preventive care without cost-sharing. That would include, for example, access to contraceptive services. If you just read the arguments in the case itself, the arguments are all about very fine-grained administrative processes involved with the inclusion of these guarantees under the Affordable Care Act. The plaintiffs want to argue that there were unconstitutional flaws in the administrative mechanisms that brought this portion of the Affordable Care Act into existence.

“However, the real subtext is that these provisions of the ACA violate freedom of religion in that the government is requiring companies to pay for services, such as contraception, that some might find religiously objectionable. In this case, if the owner of a privately owned company is providing health insurance for their employees, and if that owner is religiously opposed to contraception, then they really want to argue that they should not have to pay for those preventive services that, to them, are religiously objectionable. However, trying to address the issue that directly would probably not find favor with the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Insurance benefits are part of the total pay package of an employee. A company would clearly not have the legal right to demand that their employees could not spend any of the money they earned from the company on contraceptives or other health care services owners of the company found to be religiously objectionable. But if the insurance package is part of every employees compensation, then those employees ought to be able to ‘purchase/have provided to them’ those services the employers found objectionable. Otherwise, the employer is imposing his religious views on his employees, which would very clearly be unconstitutional. Hence, what is really happening in this legal case is trying to find an administrative technicality that would allow overturning the substance of that insurance requirement. This might be an acceptable legal strategy, but the consequences would be utterly indecent and inhumane.”

Environmental regulation

Jeremy Orr is an adjunct professor of law at the College of Law. He is an expert on issues relating to environmental law and policy, as well as civil rights law.
Contact: orrjerem@msu.edu

Case: State of California v. Environmental Protection Agency on the topic of a state enforcing stricter emission standards than the EPA. This case was previously decided and the U.S. Senate recently voted to codify that states could not have this waiver.

“This case is about whether states can lead when the federal government is not moving fast enough. Taking away California’s ability to set stronger standards would slow innovation, weaken public health protections and make it harder to tackle pollution. We should be supporting proven strategies to cut emissions, not tying the hands of states that are willing to lead.”

Case: Oklahoma v. EPA on the topic of U.S. Court of Appeals jurisdiction over EPA regulation.

“We need clear and consistent enforcement of environmental protections, not a system where challenges are scattered across different courts. If the court sides with Oklahoma, it will slow down critical EPA actions and create confusion that benefits no one. Environmental problems move quickly and solutions need to move even faster.”