Supreme Court Cases: Decisions Pending – NPR
- As the Supreme Court term nears its conclusion, the justices are facing a heavy workload, with roughly 20 cases yet to be decided.
- An increasing number of rulings are now emerging from the "shadow docket," or emergency docket.
- Statistics compiled by Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck show a stark increase in the use of the emergency docket.
The Supreme Court is poised to make critical decisions on a range of issues, with roughly 20 cases still undecided as the term concludes. Key among these are challenges to birthright citizenship, gender-affirming care for minors, and the Affordable Care Act. The court’s frequent use of the “shadow docket,” a practice that accelerated during the Trump administration, is also under scrutiny. Statistics reveal a substantial increase in emergency requests, often leading to rulings without detailed explanations and impacting federal policies. News Directory 3 provides insightful coverage of these developments, including ongoing debates over birthright citizenship and state restrictions on transgender care. Discover what’s next as the justices deliver their final rulings.
supreme Court grapples with shadow docket, birthright citizenship case
Updated June 16, 2025
As the Supreme Court term nears its conclusion, the justices are facing a heavy workload, with roughly 20 cases yet to be decided. Among the most significant is a challenge to birthright citizenship, alongside cases concerning gender-affirming care and access to pornography.
An increasing number of rulings are now emerging from the “shadow docket,” or emergency docket. This trend gained momentum during the Trump administration and has altered the court’s operations.
Statistics compiled by Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck show a stark increase in the use of the emergency docket. During the Bush and Obama administrations, the government sought emergency action onyl eight times, succeeding in just four.Under Trump’s first term, the administration requested such action 41 times, securing favorable outcomes in 28 instances, often without description from the court.
This pattern has persisted. In the first 20 weeks of Trump’s second term, 19 emergency requests were filed, compared to the Biden administration’s total of 19 requests over four years. So far, the court has sided with the Trump administration in 10 of 12 decided cases, impacting federal worker layoffs, agency shutdowns, and deportation policies.
The rise of the shadow docket has substantially increased the court’s workload, often resulting in deference to the president and the overturning of lower court decisions without detailed reasoning. This leaves various groups, including federal employees and individuals facing deportation, in limbo.
Birthright citizenship debate
Among the fully argued cases, the birthright citizenship case (Trump v. CASA, Inc.) stands out. Trump’s legal team argues that the Constitution does not guarantee citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.To date, no judge has agreed with this claim. The administration is challenging the scope of lower court rulings, arguing that they should not apply nationwide.
Transgender care restrictions
Another key case addresses state laws restricting gender-affirming care for minors. Twenty-five states have already enacted such bans. Plaintiffs argue these laws are discriminatory as similar medications are available to other minors for different conditions.
The court will also consider religious rights in public schools. A case from Montgomery County, Md., involves parents seeking opt-out provisions for materials that conflict with their religious beliefs, specifically books with LGBTQ+ characters. School officials worry that a ruling in favor of the parents could lead to widespread disruptions.
Other major cases
The justices will also rule on a Texas law aimed at curbing children’s access to pornography by requiring age verification for all users of adult websites.
Additionally, the court is revisiting the Affordable Care Act, this time focusing on the requirement for private insurers to provide free preventive care. This includes immunizations and cancer screenings, which have benefited millions since the ACA’s implementation. A ruling against the ACA could eliminate these benefits.