| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | 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.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/25grantednotedlist.pdf</ref> Prominent cases accepted by the Court for a decision on their merits (i.e., [[cert. granted]]) are listed below. | | 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.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/25grantednotedlist.pdf</ref> Prominent cases accepted by the Court for a decision on their merits (i.e., [[cert. granted]]) are listed below. |
| | | | |
| − | A few high-profile new grants of [[certiorari]] are expected on July 3rd, as the Courts final announcements for the [[Supreme Court 2024 Term]]. | + | 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]]''<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-takes-major-case-100000865.html</ref> ([[cert. granted]] on June 16, 2025). | | *''[[First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin]]''<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-takes-major-case-100000865.html</ref> ([[cert. granted]] on June 16, 2025). |
| | *[[conversion therapy]] case, ''[[Chiles v. Salazar]]'' | | *[[conversion therapy]] case, ''[[Chiles v. Salazar]]'' |
| Line 7: |
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, one from Idaho and the other from West Virginia, posing these questions: |
| | + | |
| | + | (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 [[transgender]]s. |
| | == References == | | == References == |
| | {{reflist}} | | {{reflist}} |