Four Key Cases the US Supreme Court Will Look at in 2025-2026 Term
...In Chiles v. Salazar, Christian counselor Kaley Chiles is challenging a Colorado law banning "conversion therapy," citing religious liberty violations. The law prohibits counselors and therapists from cautioning children against gender ideology and gender transition procedures but allows counselors and therapists to encourage gender ideology and gender transition procedures...
[WashingtonStand.com] Over the past year, the US Supreme Court has made several significant decisions and rulings, from protecting children from online pornography, allowing parents to opt their children out of LGBT promotion in the classroom, and empowering states to defund Planned Parenthood to halting the abuse of universal injunctions, ending workplace reverse discrimination, and letting states shield children from harmful gender transition procedures. The Supreme Court's emergency docket was also filled—and often—with the nation's highest judicial authority frequently siding with President Donald Trump on everything from immigration to transgender-identifying military servicemembers. (Screengrab image: via US Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court's next term, beginning in October, promises to keep the nine justices just as active. Here are some of the most important cases already on the Supreme Court's docket for the next year.
Little v. Hecox
In United States v. Skrmetti, decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court determined that states are free to protect children from transgenderism; now, the court will decide whether states are free to protect women's sports. In 2020, Idaho approved H.B. 500, a law barring biological males who identify as women from competing in women's sports. Lindsey Hecox, a biological male who identifies as a woman, challenged the law in an effort to compete on Boise State University's track and cross-country women's teams. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that Idaho's law violated the Equal Protection Clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
"Women and girls have fought for decades to achieve an equal playing field. Nowhere has that been more evident than in sports," Idaho wrote in its appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal continued, "The last decade has exhibited a growing trend of males identifying as females competing against—and beating—females in women's sports across the country." Idaho pleaded, "This Court's review is urgently needed to resolve [jurisprudential] splits and preserve the equal playing field women have fought to secure. ... Every day the Ninth Circuit's decision stands, female athletes suffer injustice. The petition should be granted without delay."
West Virginia v. BPJ
Idaho specifically requested that the Supreme Court also take up the similar case of West Virginia v. BPJ, in order to firmly resolve questions surrounding the legal definitions of sex and gender and their treatment before the law. In response to a West Virginia law blocking biological males from competing in women's sports, transgender-identifying 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson (the eponymous BPJ) filed a lawsuit, citing violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title IX. Clinton-appointed Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia originally prevented the state from enforcing the law but ultimately ruled that it was not unconstitutional. Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, writing that applying the law to BPJ "would treat her worse than people to whom she is similarly situated, deprive her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and do so on the basis of sex."
In its petition to the Supreme Court, West Virginia wrote, "This Court should set things right. The Fourth Circuit's splintered decision casts into doubt similar laws in at least 24 other States, sows confusion about antidiscrimination law, ignores scientific evidence, and renders school sports an un-administrable morass." The state continued, "In the end, the decision all but declares that any law recognizing differences between sexes is unlawful whenever that law runs counter to someone's 'gender identity.'"
Chiles v. Salazar
Idaho and West Virginia aren't the only states tackling the issue of transgenderism. Colorado has also waded into the fray, but heading the other direction. In Chiles v. Salazar, Christian counselor Kaley Chiles is challenging a Colorado law banning "conversion therapy," citing religious liberty violations. The law prohibits counselors and therapists from cautioning children against gender ideology and gender transition procedures but allows counselors and therapists to encourage gender ideology and gender transition procedures. Both a US District Court and the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously ruled against Chiles, allowing the Colorado law to stand.
The Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts currently classify conversations between counselors and patients as "conduct," which states are permitted to legally regulate, while the Third and Eleventh Circuit Courts recognize those conversations as constitutionally-protected free speech. "The Court should not allow this conflict to persist. Otherwise, counselors like Kaley Chiles and countless other professionals ... will have First Amendment protections in some states but not others," wrote Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing Chiles. "Constitutional rights should not depend on geographical happenstance," ADF attorneys wrote. They added, "This Court's review is urgently needed to reaffirm that the government cannot censor messages 'under the guise' of regulating conduct..."
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin
New Jersey's Attorney General, Democrat Matthew Platkin, subpoenaed First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a group of pro-life pregnancy resource centers, demanding information on donors and doctors affiliated with the group. Platkin claimed to be investigating potentially misleading business practices, but First Choice Women's Resource Centers claimed in a federal lawsuit that the AG's actions had a "chilling effect" on pro-lifers' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Both a US District Court and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that it properly belonged in a state court, not a federal court. While the Supreme Court isn't expected to resolve the First Amendment claims, the justices will address the jurisdictional question, clarifying federal court jurisdiction over state actions infringing on First Amendment rights. Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here
S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.
