These are the 6 cases left for SCOTUS to rule on this term

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts announced on Thursday that the high court would issue its last opinions of the term on Friday, per the Associated Press. Six cases remain to be decided in the 2024 term.

In May, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v CASA, a case centering around President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. The Trump administration requested that the high court issue a partial stay on a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by a Maryland district court on the executive order, pending an appeal. 

"These cases—which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship—raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border. But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a 'modest' request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purpor[t] to cover every person … in the country,' limiting those in junctions to parties actually within the courts’ power."

Free Speech Coalition v Paxton was argued before the court in January. The question presented to the Supreme Court centers around a Fifth Circuit decision in which they "applied rational-basis review—rather than strict scrutiny—to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults’ access to protected speech, because the law’s stated purpose is to protect minors." It stems from a legal challenge filed by an adult entertainment industry trade group over a Texas law that requires age verification to view sexual content online.

In the case of Mahmoud v Taylor, argued before the court in April, centers around parents of varying religions and their objection to their children in Montgomery County, Maryland schools being read books on LGBTQ issues. The high court has been requested to rule on whether "public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out."

The Supreme Court will also weigh in on Louisiana v Callais, argued before the court in March. The case is a long-running dispute over a Louisiana congressional map adopted in 2024. Per ScotusBlog, "A group of voters describing themselves as 'non-African American' challenged the 2024 map, contending that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, that it sorted voters based primarily on their race. Defending the new map, the state contended that race was not the motivating factor behind the new map. Instead, it argued, it drew the map as it did to protect several high-profile Republican incumbents, such as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee."

Also set to be ruled on is Federal Communications Commission vs Consumers Research, argued before the court in March. The case centers around the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, which was created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Helping administer the fund is the Universal Service Administrative Company, a nonprofit created by the FCC. A conservative consumer advocacy group challenged the program, saying it "violated the Constitution by outsourcing Congress’s power to the Federal Communications Commission and a private nonprofit corporation that helps to administer the program," per ScotusBlog. 

The case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, initially filed under prior Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, centers around the Department of Health and Human Services’ US Preventive Services Task Force. The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh whether "the court of appeals erred in holding that the structure of the Task Force violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the Task Force from the HHS Secretary’s supervision."