Supreme Court nears final rulings on critical cases of term

Buckle up, folks — the Supreme Court is about to drop some game-changing decisions this Friday, closing out its term with a bang.

As the highest court wraps up, it’s set to rule on six major cases, ranging from presidential power limits to free speech debates, all expected in one blockbuster release, as Just the News reports.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court’s term kicks off in October and winds down by June’s end, though the justices could stretch into July if they wanted.

Final day for decisions announced

This time, the justices locked in Friday as the last day to unveil their rulings, no extensions needed.

Any case left undecided by term’s end can be pushed for reargument next time around, but that won’t be necessary for these six.

Leading the pack is Trump v. CASA, a heavyweight bout over whether federal judges can slap nationwide injunctions on presidential orders or stay in their own lane.

Trump v. CASA takes center stage

This case stems from President Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, the long-standing practice of granting automatic citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil.

Three district judges shot it down, ruling it breached the 14th Amendment, and oral arguments hit the Supreme Court back on May 15.

Will the justices curb judicial overreach or uphold broad injunctions? That’s the million-dollar question, and it’s not just about citizenship — it’s about who really holds the reins.

Free speech, voting rights in focus

Then there’s Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, diving into whether Texas can force age checks on adult websites and if the appeals court picked the right legal test—rational basis—over the tougher strict scrutiny standard.

Meanwhile, Louisiana v. Callais tackles a congressional map with two majority-Black districts, after a federal court flagged the original single-district setup as likely violating the Voting Rights Act.

Critics cry racial gerrymandering, but the map’s architects insist race wasn’t the driving force — sounds like a tightrope walk for the justices.

LGBTQ+ curriculum, insurance mandates debated

Shifting gears, Mahmoud v. Taylor sees parents of various faiths pushing back against public schools mandating lessons with LGBTQ+ themes, claiming it stomps on their First Amendment rights.

They’re fighting to shield their kids from certain storybooks, and while respecting personal beliefs is key, mandating opt-outs could open a Pandora’s box of curriculum chaos.

Lastly, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management challenges a task force dictating what preventive care — like HIV prevention drugs — insurers must cover, with opponents arguing only the president, with Senate backing, should appoint its members, not some agency head. Oh, and Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research questions if a telecom program’s funding is an illegal tax and if Congress dodged its duties under the nondelegation doctrine. Turns out, even the smallest bureaucratic moves can spark constitutional showdowns.