The U.S. Supreme Court 2025: A Recap

The U.S. Supreme Court just wrapped up its 2024-2025 term. In decisions related to health care, LGBTQ+ rights, and more, the Court continues to significantly impact policies affecting individuals nationwide. Keep reading to learn more about a few key decisions from this term that relate to WRJ’s mission of creating a more just and compassionate world for all.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic asked the question: does the Medicaid “free choice of provider provision” allow beneficiaries to choose a specific provider? The case was brought in the context of anti-abortion policymakers in South Carolina excluding Planned Parenthood providers from the Medicaid program. Under the federal law known as the Hyde amendment, abortion care is not covered by Medicaid. However, excluding Planned Parenthood centers from Medicaid would prevent the over one million low-income South Carolina residents enrolled in Medicaid as of June 2024 from receiving access to contraception, STI testing, cancer screenings, and other essential health services that Planned Parenthood provides.  

Overturning decades of precedent, the Supreme Court struck down the Medicaid Act’s free choice of provider provision, excluding South Carolina’s Planned Parenthood South Atlantic from the state’s Medicaid program. While this decision may only affect South Carolinians for now, it dangerously opens the door for other states to exclude Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health centers from state Medicaid programs.  

Read WRJ’s response to Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.

United States v. Skrmetti

In 2023, Tennessee restricted gender-affirming care for minors. While many of these treatments, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers, are still allowed for certain medical conditions, they are not permitted for altering the appearance of or validating the gender identity of a minor when inconsistent with their biological sex. In response, a group of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers filed suit. This led the Supreme Court to consider the question: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment?

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, finding that it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.  This decision puts young people and their families at risk. Medical care for transgender youth is endorsed as essential treatment for those who need it by every major medical, pediatric, and psychological association in the United States. Bans on gender-affirming care bans have already uprooted families and communities across the country, and there is now a greater risk of further harm to individuals and the community.  

Read WRJ’s response to United States v. Skrmetti.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

In 2020, Braidwood Management, a Christian-owned business, filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that health plans cover certain preventative services--such as PrEP--violated their religious beliefs. Because recommendations about which services should be covered is made by a panel appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the technical question before the Supreme Court was whether the Secretary has authority to appoint United States Preventative Services Taskforce (USPSTF) members under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in Article II.  

The Supreme Court found that USPSTF does not violate the Constitution's appointment clause. This allows the HHS Secretary the power to review the recommendations issued by the USPSTF and to remove its members at will. While this decision upholds the current ACA USPSTF coverage requirements, it will likely not be the last word on the preventive services the ACA covers free of cost-sharing.  

Read WRJ’s response to Kennedy v. Braidwood Management.

Mahmoud v. Taylor  

In 2022, several LGBTQ+ books were approved for use in Montgomery County, MD, classrooms,. Parents were initially allowed to opt their children out of reading these books, though that option ended in 2023. The question that the Supreme Court considered was whether the school district’s policy infringes on parents’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents, allowing them to opt their children out of reading books that address gender orientation and sexual identity. This case will have significant implications across the United States, especially when it comes to how schools handle parental rights and religious beliefs in the context of LGBTQ+ education.  

Read WRJ’s response to Mahmoud v. Taylor.  

WRJ continues to fight for reproductive health care, LGBTQ+ rights, and more as we see similar topics being debated in Congress and prepare for the next term of the Supreme Court.