The 2024-2025 Supreme Court term was more destructive than the last, and remains a great threat to every single person living in the United States, especially women. Women of color, LGBTQ women and those living with disabilities face the greatest threats. The Court remained committed to extremist ideology over evidence and expertise, and personal interests over the health, wellbeing and safety of others.The Court’s extremist majority continues its blatant disregard for the laws they swore to uphold while chipping away at the very core of our nation: our democracy, our autonomy, and our basic dignity.
Most notably, the Court eliminated the practice of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA, a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s effort to end birthright citizenship. Nationwide injunctions are court orders that prevent a policy from going into effect anywhere in the United States, not just against the specific people involved in the case. In this case, a nationwide injunction was used by a district court to prevent enforcement of an executive order that would make certain individuals born in the United States ineligible for citizenship due to the immigration status of their parents. The Court held that nationwide injunctions are inappropriate because they give a legal remedy to individuals not directly involved in the case, therefore if people would like to benefit from an injunction they must indvidually join the case as a party. This is unrealistic for many whom the injunction would benefit because not everyone has the resources to join a case.
While nationwide injunctions have been crucial to limiting presidential overreach, this decision further emboldens the executive branch to act with fewer checks and violate constitutional rights with impunity. As Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, “The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Undermining The Integrity Of Independent Federal Agencies
In Trump v. Wilcox, the Supreme Court considered whether to pause the reinstatement of independent agency officers who were fired before the conclusion of their terms. More than 90 years ago, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court held that presidents could not fire officers of independent agencies without cause if Congress intended to limit such firings. The court further held that limitations on firings by the executive office are constitutional. In a subsequent case, Wiener v. United States, the Court affirmed this decision, holding that the president does not have unfettered removal powers by the Constitution and the statute at issue. The Court reaffirmed these limitations for a third time in Morrison v. Olson and even extended removal protections to certain executive branch officers.
In this case, the Trump Administration fired two leaders of independent federal agencies before the conclusion of their terms, including Gwynne Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Per the National Labor Relations Act, board members are appointed and serve five-year terms. Chair Wilcox’s term was set to end in 2028.
In an unsigned, two-page order, the Supreme Court placed a hold on a lower court’s order halting Chair Wilcox’s firing. The Court decided against reinstating Chair Wilcox to her former NLRB position while she is challenging her firing. While the order is not a decision on the merits, it is a likely indicator that the Supreme Court may later rule that a President may fire members of independent agencies to replace them with loyalists. This would undermine the integrity of independent agencies by making them vulnerable to the shifting demands of the sitting president and undermine agencies’ mission to serve the American people.
This could also have implications for other independent agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Trump administration also fired Chair Burrows and Commissioner Samuels before the end of their 5-year terms. The EEOC is an essential agency that works to prevent unlawful discrimination in the workplace and advance equal opportunity for all workers.
Narrowing Who is Protected Against Disability-Based Discrimination at Work
In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court considered whether a retiree could sue for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) over post-employment benefits. Under the ADA, it is illegal to discriminate against qualified individuals due to their disability. The ADA also states that if an employer offers health insurance coverage they cannot refuse to cover an employee because they have a disability.
In this case, a former city firefighter who had taken disability retirement due to Parkinson’s brought a lawsuit against the City of Sanford. At the beginning of her employment, the city offered free health insurance until age 65 for employees who retired due to disability or who had served 25 years. The plaintiff was unaware that, a few years into her 20 years of service, the city cut that offer to only 24 months of health insurance for those who retired due to disability. After she retired, she sued the city under the ADA alleging discrimination based on the city providing different health insurance coverage to those with 25 years of service and those with disabilities.
The Supreme Court concluded that the ADA only protects individuals who hold or are seeking a job and are able to perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation when the alleged discrimination occurs. With this decision, the Supreme Court narrowed who is considered a “qualified person” protected under the ADA. As a result of this ruling, workers who suffer disability discrimination may find it more challenging to bring claims against their previous employers for post-employment benefits.
Permitting Discrimination Against Transgender Youth
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court’s majority upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender people under 18 even though the ban was rooted in anti-trans animus. The Court held that the state law does not draw a sex-based line and so does not trigger heightened scrutiny nor does it violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the Court in Bostock v. Clayton County clearly stating gender identity discrimination is impermissible sex discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny. Leading medical and mental health organizations determined gender-affirming hormone therapy to be safe, appropriate, and effective and submitted an amicus brief detailing the benefits of gender-affirming medical care. In this decision, the Court placed ideology over the safety, health, and wellbeing of young people. While the decision is limited to Tennessee’s ban, it signals a willingness of the Court to permit singling out a particular group for unequal treatment.
Clarifying the Burden of Proof for Showing Employees are Exempt from Wage Protections
In E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera, the Court considered the standard of proof needed for employers to demonstrate an employee is exempt from wage protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Several provisions of the FLSA exempt certain types of workers from the law’s minimum wage and overtime requirements; this includes an outside sales exemption from overtime.
In this case, sales representatives sued their employer for unpaid overtime, but their employer claimed the workers were exempt under the law’s outside sales exemption. A lower court held that overtime pay was due to the workers because their employer did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were exempt. The employer appealed, arguing that the court was incorrect to apply this heightened standard of proof.
The Supreme Court agreed with the employer, holding that a heightened standard of proof is only used if the statute or the Constitution calls for it or “when the government seeks to take unusual coercive action.” The Court reasoned that, because the FLSA is silent on the burden of proof that employers must abide by for exemptions, no Constitutional rights are implicated and no “unusual coercive action” is involved, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies.
Protecting Individuals’ Right to Sue State Agencies in State Court for Violating Their Constitutional Rights
In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court considered whether a claimant was required to exhaust all state administration remedies before bringing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in state court. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals have the right to sue state government employees for violating their constitutional rights or rights under federal law. This law was created as a means for individuals to enforce their civil rights.
In this case, plaintiffs’ unemployment compensation claims with the Alabama Department of Labor were not processed in a timely manner. As a result, the plaintiffs sued under Section 1983 to challenge the delays in the administration process. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs could not bring a claim in state court under Section 1983 because the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust all state administrative remedies. This ruling meant that claimants would never be able to sue under Section 1983 to challenge delays in the administration process because they had not completed the very process they wanted to challenge.
The Supreme Court held that Alabama could not enforce an exhaustion rule that results in claimants not being able to bring Section 1983 claims. Making it easier for individuals to bring claims under section 1983 when challenging delays in the administration process. This ruling could have a much broader impact on civil rights and constitutional claims against the government.
Blocking Funding to Planned Parenthood
In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the Supreme Court addressed whether people enrolled in Medicaid have the right to sue to enforce Medicaid’s ‘free choice of provider’ provision. This fundamental consumer protection historically allowed individuals with Medicaid health coverage to obtain care from any qualified provider of their choice and pursue legal action if a state denied them their choice of a qualified provider. In 2018, South Carolina’s governor issued an executive order excluding clinics that provide abortion care from its state Medicaid program, specifically targeting Planned Parenthood. In Medina, the Supreme Court ruled that those relying on Medicaid could no longer sue to challenge this restriction in court. As a result of this decision, people enrolled in Medicaid in South Carolina will no longer be able to use their Medicaid coverage to obtain services from Planned Parenthood, including essential preventive services like contraceptive care, STI treatment, and cancer screenings.
This ruling has significant implications, especially for low-income, rural, and medically underserved communities that disproportionately rely on Planned Parenthood clinics for access to necessary health care services. While the immediate impact is limited to South Carolina, this decision sets a dangerous precedent that could potentially embolden other states to exclude health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from their state Medicaid programs. As Medicaid faces increasing threats, this decision further imperils access to reproductive and other essential health care.
Threatening Access to Preventive Care Services
In Braidwood v. Kennedy, the Court was asked to decide the constitutionality of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). USPSTF recommends which preventive services insurance companies should offer without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act, reducing out-of-pocket payments for patients. Braidwood Management Inc., objected on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers HIV prevention through prescription pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and argued that members of USPSTF lacked constitutional authority to make preventive services recommendations. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the members of USPSTF were constitutionally appointed because the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has significant oversight over the task force, including the ability to remove members and disregard their evidence-based recommendations.
While this case protected access to critical preventive services that over 150 million people rely on for now, the Court’s decision reaffirmed the oversight authority of the HHS Secretary to remove task force members at-will. The current Secretary of HHS has already demonstrated his willingness to undermine USPSTF by abruptly canceling the July 2025 Task Force meeting without explanation, thus signaling an imminent threat to eliminate or weaken the Task Force’s authority. The Secretary has already dismantled the integrity of another advisory body he oversees by removing health experts from the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee and replacing them with those that align with his vaccine ideology. Access to preventive services helps detect potential health issues early, reduces the risk of developing serious illness, and helps keep millions of people healthy. The evidence-based recommendations from independent entities like USPSTF are essential to maintaining this access.
***
In our 2024 Supreme Court Wrap-Up, we shared that we were watching Lyft, Inc. v. California and Uber Technologies, Inc. v. California, cases where Uber and Lyft sought to invalidate a California law that allows drivers to sue Uber or Lyft in court, even if they signed an arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreements can make filing civil rights and other types of claims against employers more difficult. However, the Court declined to review these cases.
