[[link removed]]

SUPREME COURT OPENS WITH CASES ON VOTING RIGHTS, TARIFFS, GENDER
IDENTITY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE TO TEST THE LIMITS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
REVOLUTION  
[[link removed]]


 

Morgan Marietta
October 2, 2025
The Conversation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The major cases in October and November address the role of race in
elections, conversion therapy and the Trump tariffs. Later cases
include campaign finance and transgender sports. _

As the court begins a new session, public trust in the institution
has hit record lows, a recent poll showed, Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

 

The most influential cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term,
which begins on Oct. 6, 2025, reflect the cultural and partisan
clashes of American politics.

The major cases in October and November address the role of race in
elections, conversion therapy and the Trump tariffs. Later cases
include campaign finance and transgender sports.

This year’s controversies focus on three dominant themes. One is the
continuing constitutional revolution in how the justices read our
basic law. The court has shifted
[[link removed]]
from a living reading of the Constitution, which says the Constitution
should adapt to the American people’s evolving values and the needs
of contemporary society, to an original reading
[[link removed]],
which aims to enforce the constitutional principles understood by the
Americans who ratified them.

Another clear theme is the deep cultural division among Americans. The
core disputes at the court this year reflect controversial factual
questions about gender and race: How pervasive and influential is
racism in the current day? Are gender transitions a recognized fact,
which means that they must be accepted in sports competitions, or can
a state assert that trans athletes are not women?

A final theme is the struggle for partisan advantage embedded in
several cases.

Constitutional revolution

Until just a few years ago, the majority of justices would have agreed
that the proper way to read the Constitution was as an evolving
document [[link removed]], an
approach usually described as living constitutionalism
[[link removed]].

The new majority reads the Constitution as an expression of enduring
principles, which maintain their historical meaning
[[link removed]]
unless the American people collectively decide to amend the document,
an approach known as originalism.

Since 2022, this revolutionary shift has led to dramatic changes in
the law on abortion
[[link removed]],
religion
[[link removed]],
guns
[[link removed]],
affirmative action
[[link removed]]
and the power of federal agencies
[[link removed]]
to regulate in areas such as the environment
[[link removed]],
public health
[[link removed]]
or student debt
[[link removed]].

This year, the constitutional revolution – “a historic
constitutional course correction
[[link removed]]”
as legal scholars Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn and Yaniv Roznai put it –
turns to transgender politics.

Little v. Hecox
[[link removed]] and West
Virginia v. B.P.J.
[[link removed]]
ask whether a state can ban transgender athletes from participating in
girls or women’s sports. The plaintiffs are middle school and
university students who were banned by state laws from participating
as a female competitor. They are asking the court to rule that
transgender identity is a protected category similar to race and
gender under the equal protection clause
[[link removed]]
of the 14th Amendment.

 
Originalists argue
[[link removed]]
that the meaning of the 14th Amendment is clear and fixed. It
establishes the equal status of racial minorities as holders of
rights. But originalists do not believe the equal protection clause
was meant to apply to sexual identities unless that is explicitly
approved through a constitutional amendment by the American public.

Originalists also emphasize the role of federalism
[[link removed]]
as a core constitutional principle
[[link removed]].
Federalism allocates a great deal of authority to state legislatures
[[link removed]]
to make decisions when a question of rights is uncertain.

For these reasons the court majority is likely to see the regulation
of who gets to participate in women’s sports as a state-by-state
decision.

Cultural divisions, disputed perceptions

The status of transgender identity also reflects the disputed
perceptions of reality that have come to dominate American politics
[[link removed]].
In essence, the Iowa and West Virginia sports cases ask the court to
rule whether a transgender girl – a person assigned male at birth
who has transitioned to align with their identity as a girl or woman,
as the AP Stylebook
[[link removed]]
phrases it – is a girl or a boy.

The court is likely to leave such questions about what is factually
true for state legislatures to determine
[[link removed]].

The same need for the court to determine who can decide what is or is
not a legitimate fact
[[link removed]]
also applies to this year’s controversy over conversion therapy
[[link removed]].
Colorado bans the practice – condemned by many professional medical
associations – in which counselors attempt to alter sexual
orientation or gender identity.

Chiles v. Salazar
[[link removed]]
challenges the Colorado law as a violation of the First Amendment’s
protections of free speech and religious liberty.

An original reading of the First Amendment provides strong support for
open expression on controversial topics, even by medical professionals
[[link removed]].
But on the factual question of whether homosexuality or gender
identity in young people is indisputably innate or immutable, the
court may defer to state legislatures to decide whether licensed
professionals must assert only a specific set of accepted facts.

Partisan advantage

Many observers perceive a partisan as well as principled divide
[[link removed]]
on the current court. Decisions in several cases this year potentially
give a distinct advantage in future elections to Democrats or
Republicans.

The most clear case may be about the regulation of campaign finance.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC
[[link removed]]
– a lawsuit begun in 2022 by then-U.S. Sen. JD Vance – asks the
court to overturn a restriction that bars political parties from
coordinating unlimited spending on campaign advertising with the
official campaign.

Many Democrats believe Republicans will be the larger beneficiaries
[[link removed]]
in the coming years if the court rules that the current limits violate
the First Amendment.

Then there’s the challenge to the constitutionality of the Trump
tariffs.

Learning Resources v. Trump
[[link removed]]
will determine whether the recent tariffs are authorized by Congress
under the International Emergency Powers Act
[[link removed]] of 1977. The answer
hinges on the application of what’s known as the “major questions
doctrine [[link removed]],” which
limits presidential authority
[[link removed]]
over issues of great economic or policy importance in the absence of
direct endorsement from Congress.

The major questions doctrine is an originalist concept, but in the
court’s view it may not apply to actions in the foreign policy realm
– including tariffs – where the president has greater discretion.

[A container ship loaded with hundres of containers, coming into a
port.]
[[link removed]]

 
Will the court strike down Trump’s tariffs on imported goods such as
those on this ship in Oakland, Calif.? Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
[[link removed]]

Race and elections

The case that represents all three trends at the court is Louisiana v.
Callais
[[link removed]]
on the creation of majority-Black congressional districts.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965
[[link removed]]
outlaws racial discrimination in voting. This landmark legislation
from the civil rights era helped raise the rate of Black voter
registration and turnout in Southern states from less than half the
white rate to exceeding it
[[link removed]]
over the past 60 years.

The question in front of the court is whether the law requires a state
to make sure that some congressional districts have a majority of
Black voters.

The argument opposing the intentional creation of racial districts is
that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
[[link removed]] demands
the same treatment of all citizens regardless of race, banning any
distinction even when designed to benefit minorities.

Underlying the differences of opinion are competing perceptions of the
prevalence and influence of racism in the current day. This dispute
was clear in the court’s 2013 Shelby County
[[link removed]]
decision, which struck down
[[link removed]]
the part of the Voting Rights Act that limited Southern states from
passing new elections laws without “pre-clearance” from the
Department of Justice. That requirement aimed to ensure that new laws
would not discriminate against Black voters, whether intentionally or
unintentionally.

In striking down that requirement, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled
[[link removed]]
that “no one can fairly say” that the South “shows anything
approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and
‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously responded
[[link removed]]
that removing the Voting Rights Act’s protections was “like
throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting
wet.”

The ultimate number of majority-Black districts in Louisiana is not
only a question of constitutional principles applied to prevailing
facts. It is also about partisan advantage. Partisans on both sides
are well aware that a majority-Black district is also a Democratic
district.

So whether the state ends up with two or just one – or potentially
even none – of its six congressional districts shaped by race could
shift the future partisan balance in a closely divided Congress.

With partisan advantage, clashing perceptions of reality and
revolutionary readings of the Constitution all in play, the rulings of
the Supreme Court this year will reach far into American politics and
culture.

* Upcoming Cases before the US Supreme Court;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]