Difference between revisions of "Supreme Court 2025 Term"
(improved) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*''Louisiana v. Callais'' (redistricting case rescheduled for a second oral argument) | *''Louisiana v. Callais'' (redistricting case rescheduled for a second oral argument) | ||
*''Dept. of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of TX'' (held in abeyance during the [[Supreme Court 2024 Term]]) | *''Dept. of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of TX'' (held in abeyance during the [[Supreme Court 2024 Term]]) | ||
| − | *two transgender sports cases, | + | *two transgender sports cases, ''Little v. Hecox'' (Idaho) and ''West Virginia v. B.P.J.'', posing these questions about their state laws protecting girls' sports against [[transgender]] participation: |
(Idaho case) | (Idaho case) | ||
Revision as of 15:47, July 3, 2025
The Supreme Court 2025 Term opens in October 2025 and runs until the end of June 2026, an election year. As of July 2, a total of 30 cases have been accepted by the Court to resolve in this Term.[1] Prominent cases accepted by the Court for a decision on their merits (i.e., cert. granted) are listed below.
A new grant of certiorari was issued on July 3rd, as the Court's final announcements for the Supreme Court 2024 Term.
- First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin[2] (cert. granted on June 16, 2025).
- conversion therapy case, Chiles v. Salazar
- Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections (election-related cases)
- Louisiana v. Callais (redistricting case rescheduled for a second oral argument)
- Dept. of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of TX (held in abeyance during the Supreme Court 2024 Term)
- two transgender sports cases, Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J., posing these questions about their state laws protecting girls' sports against transgender participation:
(Idaho case)
Whether laws that seek to protect women’s and girls’ sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(West Virginia case)
1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has already stated, in her concurrence Skrmetti, that the Equal Protection Clause does not protect transgenders.