| | *''Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton'' (6-3 decision by Justice Thomas upholding, under the intermediate scrutiny standard of review, a [[Texas]] law requiring age verification by pornography websites)<ref>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/</ref> | | *''Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton'' (6-3 decision by Justice Thomas upholding, under the intermediate scrutiny standard of review, a [[Texas]] law requiring age verification by pornography websites)<ref>https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/</ref> |
| | *ObamaCare "free" mandates imposed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on businesses upheld, 6-3 (Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch dissenting), in ''Kennedy v. Braidwood Management'' | | *ObamaCare "free" mandates imposed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on businesses upheld, 6-3 (Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch dissenting), in ''Kennedy v. Braidwood Management'' |
| − | *''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 back to South [[Sudan]].<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf</ref> Subsequently the Trump Administration has requested relief against the district court for continuing to block these deportations. | | *''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> Subsequently the Trump Administration has requested relief against the district court for continuing to block these deportations. |