Skip to content
BROTHERS IN LAW

Skrmetti and birth equality

By Akhil and Vikram Amar on July 7 at 12:40 pm

Beginning with Skrmetti, several of last term’s biggest cases are best analyzed through the prism of one of the Constitution’s biggest ideas: birth equality. Americans are created equal – born equal, regardless of the accidents of their birth. Though none of the justices in Skrmetti carefully elaborated this sweeping birth-equality principle, it provides the deepest and most enduring framework for understanding the true constitutional issues underlying this high-profile case.

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. is pictured from afar

(Jimmy Woo via Unsplash)

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Court allows Trump administration to move forward in sending group of immigrants to South Sudan

By Amy Howe on July 3 at 6:36 pm

On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court paused an order by a federal judge preventing the government from deporting eight noncitizens to South Sudan. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the individuals will now be sent to that country “without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death.”

SCOTUS NEWS

Supreme Court agrees to hear cases on transgender athletes

By Amy Howe on July 3 at 12:44 pm

The Supreme Court on Thursday took up two cases concerning the constitutionality of banning transgender women and girls from participating on female sports teams. The cases will be decided in the court’s 2025-26 term.

TERM IN REVIEW

The 2024-25 term brought notable wins for the court’s conservative majority – and the Trump administration

By Amy Howe on July 2 at 12:31 pm

Even before the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on universal injunctions, the administration’s success in front of the court was one of the major stories of the term. The justices granted many of the administration’s pleas for emergency relief, including in cases on removing protected status from certain foreign nationals living in the U.S. and enabling their deportation to third-party countries.

Newsletter Sign Up

Receive email updates, legal news, and original reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch.

More news

TERM IN REVIEW

Federal fraud after Kousisis

By Richard Cooke on July 7, 2025

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term.

In Kousisis v. United States, decided on May 22, the Supreme Court considered the breadth of federal wire and mail fraud offenses and unanimously rejected a requirement that a fraud victim suffer a net economic loss. Instead, the court focused on whether the fraudster’s misrepresentations were material – that is, whether they would have affected the victim’s decision to engage in the fraudulent transaction in the first place.

Continue Reading
WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Monday, July 7

By Zachary Shemtob on July 7, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Friday, July 4

By Zachary Shemtob on July 4, 2025

Happy 4th of July! I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

TERM IN REVIEW

Skrmetti: The Supreme Court reaffirms that biology matters

By Erin Hawley on July 3, 2025

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term. For a contrasting view on United States v. Skrmetti, please see this piece by Craig Konnoth.

The majority opinion in United States v. Skrmetti is both measured and bold. By its terms, the decision leaves for another day questions like whether the court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County applies outside of the hiring and firing contexts governed by Title VII and whether transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class. Yet the decision is also a clear victory for the legal point of view that a reference to sex does not necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny. And the way the court reaches that conclusion – by reaffirming that the biological differences between men and women matter – suggests that a majority of the court may view some lines as constitutionally permissible, such as laws that separate bathrooms and sports based on sex.

Continue Reading
TERM IN REVIEW

The use and misuse of medicine in Skrmetti

By Craig Konnoth on July 3, 2025

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term. For a contrasting view on United States v. Skrmetti, please see this piece by Erin Hawley.

To uphold Tennessee’s ban on pediatric gender-affirming care, the court in United States v. Skrmetti hid from the specter of discrimination. The court’s opinion repeatedly highlighted statutory language (which appeared only once in the statute) that targeted certain diagnoses. Yet it all but ignored language that appeared several times in the statute that explicitly targeted minors based on sex. Thus, the court concluded that the law did not discriminate against people – it only discriminated against medical diagnoses. Such reasoning mischaracterized the arguments at issue, the court’s prior doctrine, and the medicine involved.

Continue Reading