You should care about these upcoming SCOTUS decisions

Maya Sunderraj, Assistant Opinions Editor

The Supreme Court of the United States recently declined a petition it received from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to review the constitutionality of Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that federally legalized same-sex marriage. 

The petition sparked concern that LGBTQ+ people might lose a well-established right to marriage. 

The public concern over the protection of same-sex marriage and our rights is extremely valid, but many people didn’t seem to understand one major factor — the petition. By its very nature, it was never likely to be accepted by the court in the first place. 

There simply weren’t enough justices interested in overturning Obergefell v. Hodges. Acquiring a majority opinion in favor of overturning would have been a herculean labor not worth the time of even the most conservative justices. 

There are many cases that are already before the Supreme Court — or will be next year — that require people’s attention and scrutiny. A whiny Kim Davis acting “under God’s authority” should not distract from ongoing cases that will affect individual life, our government and our greater society in the United States. 

The question then remains: What upcoming SCOTUS decisions should we look out for?

John Aughenbaugh is an associate professor of political science, Richmond’s resident SCOTUS expert and the co-host of the “Civil Discourse” podcast. He kindly provided a rundown of important cases on the docket.

Voting and voting districts: Louisiana v. Callais

Aughenbaugh labeled this case as a “big one,” as the decision surrounds the Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause. 

This case brings into question the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional districts, reviewing whether or not Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution — basically, if Louisiana’s lawmakers legally and appropriately balanced powers and protections for the people when redistricting the state. 

The case was appealed to the Court after many Black voters filed suits complaining about their vote being diluted by Louisiana’s previous redistricting efforts. 

Louisiana v. Callais will be a landmark case when it comes to voter power and representation, determining the future of the Voting Rights Act and its protections for racial equality. The decision is expected to be announced in early 2026.

Presidential power and administrative law: Trump v. Slaughter

This case concerns itself with the amount of power the executive and judicial branch can wield over administrative areas of government — specifically, the limits of hiring and firing power. This case was brought to the Supreme Court as an appeal to suspend a ruling that would require the Trump administration to rehire a Federal Trade Commission employee.

The fired employee was FTC Commissioner Katie Slaughter. She argued the firing was unconstitutional under the Federal Trade Commission Act. While the district court upheld Slaughter’s argument, the case was appealed to and accepted by the Supreme Court, asking the questions: Does the Federal Trade Commission Act violate the separation of powers agreement, and do courts have the power to prevent a removal from public office?

This case, along with the rest, should feel extremely relevant in the wake of President Donald Trump’s massive personnel reductions to federal agencies. The decision is expected to be announced in early 2026.

Transgender athletes and Title IX: West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Due to a West Virginia law that effectively banned transgender women from school athletics, a transgender high school student was unable to participate in school sports. The student is suing the state with the support of the ACLU, arguing the state committed a Title IX constitutional violation.

This case asks two questions: Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on sex determined at birth, and whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on sex determined at birth. Oral arguments are currently scheduled for Jan. 13. 

2nd Amendment/Gun rights: Wolford v. Lopez

This case examines recent changes to Hawaii’s gun laws, which limited where one can publicly carry firearms. The prior legal status quo allowed for the public carrying of firearms unless explicitly prohibited.  The law states that public concealed carry is prohibited unless explicitly allowed. The appeal to the Supreme Court argued Second Amendment violations occurred, and is pushing against similar changes to California gun laws. 

Wolford v. Lopez asks whether the lower court erred in deciding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on publicly available property unless the property owner gives express permission to the handgun carrier. The date to hear oral arguments has not yet been scheduled. 

These four cases represent major hot-button topics the U.S. is facing, such as the aggressive actions of the executive branch, transgender rights, gun control and more.

Aughenbaugh pointed out that with the upcoming decisions, we will soon see “if the Court has the stomach to one, once again send a message to the lower courts to rein in their use of injunctions, and two, to rein in the Trump administration.” 

I don’t recommend you stay glued for updates about every aspect of every case. There are also cases not mentioned that one could consider to be equally important and relevant. 

It is imperative that we keep our eyes and ears open for news on decisions. Staying informed is one of our strongest tools.