Key Takeaways from the 2024–2025 U.S. Supreme Court Term: Implications for States and Territories

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions of interest to state and territorial governments during its 2024-2025 term. The Court handed down approximately 67 rulings, along with several additional orders addressed through its emergency docket. Among the decided cases, thirteen originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit- the highest number from any circuit this term-followed by seven from the Fourth Circuit. Six cases originated from state and district courts.

The merits docket this term featured a range of issues particularly relevant to states and territories. Key issues addressed included the constitutionality of state age-verification laws for minors accessing pornographic content online, restrictions on youth access to gender-affirming care, the scope of state authority in environmental regulation, the inclusion of religious institutions in state charter school programs, and foundational questions in administrative law, amongst others.

This term also saw a notable increase in cases brought before the Court's emergency docket, commonly known as the shadow docket. From October 7, 2024, to August 9, 2025, the Court received over 110 emergency applications. While the majority of these applications involved death penalty matters or refiling requests, approximately 43 cases raised substantive issues warranting immediate relief. These included critical questions on separation of powers-such as challenges to Courts' authority to limit executive action-administrative law disputes, First Amendment conflicts, and federalism issues concerning the balance between state and federal authority. Many high-profile cases focused on presidential powers related to immigration, administrative agencies, federal funding, and the use of universal injunctions.

Key decisions impacting state and territorial governments and other major topics from the term are noted below. A full list of decisions can be found here. A list of emergency docket applications can be found here.

• First Amendment. The Court heard several cases involving the First Amendment of particular interest to states, including:
  • Age Verification for Porn Sites. In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Court upheld a Texas law requiring commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content deemed obscene to minors to verify users are at least 18 years old, finding that the law only incidentally burdens adults' protected speech and withstands intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
  • Religious Charter Schools. In OK Charter School Board v. Drummond, the Court considered whether (1) whether a privately owned and operated school's educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or whether the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program. With Justice Barrett's recusal from the case, an equally divided Court affirmed the judgment of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision held that the contract violated state and federal law, including constitutional provisions prohibiting government establishment of religion.
  • Religious Accommodations in Education. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court held that parents challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education's use of certain LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks-and its decision to deny parental opt-outs-are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
  • Tax-Exempt Religious Organizations. In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm'n., the Court held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision denying Catholic Charities Bureau a tax emption available to religious entities under Wisconsin law on the grounds that they were not "operated primarily for religious purposes" because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics violated the First Amendment.

• Universal Injunctions. The Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts. As a result, the Court granted the government's request for a partial stay of the injunctions issued against the implementation and enforcement of the Trump administration's January 20 Executive Order ending birthright citizenship. However, the stay applied only to the extent that the injunctions go beyond what is necessary to afford complete relief to the individual plaintiffs with standing.
• Youth Transgender Care. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
• Environment. In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court held that the challenged end-result permitting provisions-which make the permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants-exceed the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Court held that the D.C. Circuit failed to afford the U.S. Surface Transportation Board the substantial judicial deference required in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway. In Oklahoma v. EPA, the Court held that under the Clean Air Act, EPA's disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.
• Capital Punishment. In Glossip v. Oklahoma, the Court held that the court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals; the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. In Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Court held that petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring his claim challenging Texas's postconviction DNA testing procedures under the due process clause.
• Civil Rights Discrimination. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule-which imposes a heightened evidentiary burden on members of majority groups bringing Title VII discrimination claims-is inconsistent with both the text of Title VII and established Supreme Court precedent.
• Use of Excessive Force. In Barnes v. Felix, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit's "moment-of-threat" rule-requiring courts to assess police shootings solely based on the circumstances at the exact moment an officer perceived a threat-improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment framework for evaluating the use of force.

• Executive Authority on the Emergency Docket. This term, the Supreme Court resolved several significant disputes involving executive authority and presidential actions through its emergency docket. Key cases included:
  • A.A.R.P v. Trump. The Court addressed whether to stay the removal of a proposed class of Venezuelan men in immigration custody and to preserve the status quo during ongoing litigation under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court granted an injunction pending further proceedings, vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case. It instructed the lower court to evaluate whether the migrants could lawfully be deported under the Act and to determine the notice requirements the government must meet to allow migrants a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal.
  • Department of Education v. California. This case concerned a district court's March 10 order requiring the federal government to reinstate millions in previously terminated grants. The Supreme Court granted the emergency application to vacate that order, reasoning that disbursed funds would likely be unrecoverable if the government ultimately prevailed, while withholding them temporarily posed no irreversible harm to recipients.
  • Noem v. Doe. The Court considered whether to stay a district court order that held the Secretary of Homeland Security lacked the authority to revoke a categorical grant of parole for 532,000 non-citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, without conducting individualized assessments. On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the emergency application for a stay. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor.
  • Trump v. Wilcox. The Court considered a challenge to the district court's orders reinstating Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris to the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. On May 22, 2025, the Court granted an emergency stay, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting.

NGA holds monthly briefings for Governors' legal counsel. Please reach out to Lauren Dedon ([email protected]) for additional information.