The Supreme Court issued several rulings Friday to close out its term, but three decisions in particular stand out for their potential to reshape key areas of public life—including schools, the internet and presidential authority. All three were decided 6-3 along ideological lines, continuing a trend of the Court’s conservative majority weighing in on some of the country’s most high-profile cultural and constitutional debates.
Here’s a breakdown of the most consequential decisions and what they could mean going forward.
1. Age Verification Requirements for Porn Sites Upheld
The Court also upheld a Texas law requiring porn websites to verify users’ ages before allowing access. The law is intended to prevent minors from viewing explicit material, but critics argued that it could chill free speech and raise privacy concerns for adults.
The justices disagreed, ruling that the law “only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults” and does not violate the First Amendment. It’s the first time the Supreme Court has upheld age-verification requirements for online adult content, and similar laws are now being proposed in other states.
2. Parents Can Opt Their Children Out of Classes With LGBTQ-Themed Books
The Court ruled that public schools must offer an “opt-out” option for parents who do not want their children to participate in lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs. The case centered on a challenge to school curricula that included children’s books featuring LGBTQ characters.
The decision does not ban such materials but allows parents to request alternative instruction for their children. School administrators have expressed concern about how this ruling may affect broader curricular decisions, including science, health and literature classes. For now, the decision applies while legal challenges continue, and how it plays out in classrooms will likely vary by district.
3. The Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions—And Takes a Step in the Birthright Citizenship Debate
In a case tied to former President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born in the U.S. to parents who entered the country illegally or on temporary visas are not entitled to automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges cannot issue broad, nationwide injunctions against federal policies unless they apply directly to the plaintiffs in the case.
The case brought a once-fringe legal theory—that birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of undocumented or temporary-status immigrants—into the national spotlight. However, the Court did not weigh in on whether Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act.
Instead, the majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, focused narrowly on judicial authority, stating that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The decision effectively restricts lower courts from blocking federal policies nationwide before a case is fully resolved.
The executive order remains blocked for 30 days as litigation continues, but Friday’s decision limits the ability of lower courts to halt similar orders on a national scale in the future.
What This All Means
These three rulings address some of the most closely watched legal and cultural debates in the country: the scope of presidential authority, the rights of parents in public education and the regulation of explicit content online. Each decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences, with new guidance for how courts, schools and state governments handle similar issues going forward.
As the legal landscape continues to shift, these cases mark a defining close to the Supreme Court’s term—and signal how the Court’s current majority is approaching questions that intersect law, culture and public life.
