| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | The top ten decisions of this Term were: | | The top ten decisions of this Term were: |
| − | *''Trump v. CASA'' ([[birthright citizenship]],<ref>CASA stands for an immigrant advocacy group organization named CASA de Maryland.</ref> decided 6-3 on only procedure to end nationwide injunctions and require class certification instead; chaos is predicted from this 6-3 ruling)<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-trump-v-casa/</ref> | + | *''Trump v. CASA'' ([[birthright citizenship]],<ref>CASA stands for an immigrant advocacy group organization named CASA de Maryland.</ref> decided 6-3 on only procedure to end nationwide injunctions and require class certification instead; chaos is predicted by [[liberal]]s about this ruling)<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-trump-v-casa/</ref> |
| | *''[[U.S. v. Skrmetti]]'' (upholding, 6-3, ban on transgender operations on children) | | *''[[U.S. v. Skrmetti]]'' (upholding, 6-3, ban on transgender operations on children) |
| | *''Mahmoud v. Taylor'' (6-3 decision by Justice Alito establishing parental rights against [[LGBTQ]] indoctrination in [[public school]]s, by requiring prior notice and right to opt out) | | *''Mahmoud v. Taylor'' (6-3 decision by Justice Alito establishing parental rights against [[LGBTQ]] indoctrination in [[public school]]s, by requiring prior notice and right to opt out) |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | *''Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA'', No. 24-7, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2383 (June 20, 2025) - broadening legal [[standing]] to include those affected by regulations (energy companies in this case) | | *''Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA'', No. 24-7, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2383 (June 20, 2025) - broadening legal [[standing]] to include those affected by regulations (energy companies in this case) |
| | *''FCC v. Consumers' Rsch.'', Nos. 24-354, 24-422, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2498, at *45 (June 27, 2025) (upholding the Universal Service Fund for rural internet connectivity because "When Congress amended the Communications Act in 1996, it provided the Commission with clear guidance on how to promote universal service using carrier contributions. Congress laid out the “general policy” to be achieved, the “principle[s]” and standards the FCC must use in pursuing that policy, and the “boundaries” the FCC may not cross. J. W. Hampton, 276 U. S., at 409; American Power & Light, 329 U. S., at 105. Our precedents do not require more. Nor do they prevent the Commission, in carrying out Congress’s policy, from obtaining the Administrator’s assistance in projecting revenues and expenses, so that carriers pay the needed amount. For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution.") (6-3 decision, Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch in dissent; Court ducked the issue of non-delegation doctrine). | | *''FCC v. Consumers' Rsch.'', Nos. 24-354, 24-422, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2498, at *45 (June 27, 2025) (upholding the Universal Service Fund for rural internet connectivity because "When Congress amended the Communications Act in 1996, it provided the Commission with clear guidance on how to promote universal service using carrier contributions. Congress laid out the “general policy” to be achieved, the “principle[s]” and standards the FCC must use in pursuing that policy, and the “boundaries” the FCC may not cross. J. W. Hampton, 276 U. S., at 409; American Power & Light, 329 U. S., at 105. Our precedents do not require more. Nor do they prevent the Commission, in carrying out Congress’s policy, from obtaining the Administrator’s assistance in projecting revenues and expenses, so that carriers pay the needed amount. For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution.") (6-3 decision, Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch in dissent; Court ducked the issue of non-delegation doctrine). |
| − | *''Dept. of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.'', a 6-3 decision staying an injunction in [[Massachusetts]] against deporting migrants from South [[Sudan]].<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf</ref> | + | *''Dept. of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.'', a 6-3 decision staying an injunction in [[Massachusetts]] against deporting migrants back to South [[Sudan]].<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf</ref> |
| − | *''Louisiana v. Callais'', a race-based challenge to redistricting, punted by the Court for reargument in the next Term. | + | *''Louisiana v. Callais'', a race-based challenge to redistricting, was punted by the Court for reargument in the next Term. |
| | == Chronology == | | == Chronology == |
| | Five of the 10 cases not decided until the end of the Term -- the most contentious of the 2024-2025 sitting of the Supreme Court -- were: | | Five of the 10 cases not decided until the end of the Term -- the most contentious of the 2024-2025 sitting of the Supreme Court -- were: |