The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to grant a stay of a lower court decision telling South Carolina it has to allow a transgender girl to use the boys’ bathroom in a public school emphasizes the importance of issues the court will be reviewing when its new term starts October 6.

The court’s last term featured significant issues ranging from nationwide injunctions to parental rights to religious liberty, and it delivered no shortage of important rulings. This new term looks no different.

Here are a few of those significant cases:

Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections

Do we face an economic emergency due to our huge, debilitating trade deficit and trade barriers imposed by other countries, as President Trump claims? And does the president have the authority under applicable federal law to make that determination and impose tariffs unilaterally? That’s the issue in these combined cases that the Supreme Court recently accepted and may affect everything from the authority of a president to the nation’s economic well-being.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Despite refusing to issue a stay keeping girls who think they’re boys out of a boys’ school bathroom in South Carolina, the court did take this case from West Virginia, which could decide the fate of women’s sports in more than two dozen states.

West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” mandates that biological sex serve as the defining condition for participation in female sports. This was challenged by an 11-year-old boy who claims he is really a girl.

In a decision defying common sense and biological reality, the liberal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the law, claiming that preventing this pretend “girl” from competing in girls’ sports constituted sex-based discrimination.

A ruling by the Supremes against West Virginia would be a disaster for the future of women’s sports — and for the safety and achievements of the women who participate in those sports.

Louisiana v. Callais

Redistricting is an issue that frequently appears before the Supreme Court in litigation, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to complain about it in a prior decision.

After the 2020 census, Louisiana redrew its six congressional seats, creating one majority/minority Black congressional district. The NAACP and others sued, claiming that given the size of the Black population, the state’s failure to create a second such district violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A federal district judge agreed and ordered the state to draw a new map with two majority-Black districts. The state was then sued by other voters, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. A three-judge panel agreed. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in March.

Instead of issuing a decision at the end of its term in June, the court ordered a new round of arguments this fall on whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates the 14th or 15th amendments.

The outcome could influence redistricting nationwide as the court decides to what extent, if any, race can be used as a factor in drawing the boundary lines of legislative districts.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

This case examines the spending limits that federal law imposes on political parties engaging in candidate-coordinated campaign activities. Limits, previously upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001 in a case from Colorado, mean this decision involves reconsidering that precedent.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and then-Sen. JD Vance filed a lawsuit claiming that such limits on the activities of political parties violate the First Amendment. The lower courts all ruled against them, following the 2001 precedent. However, the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit acknowledged a “tension” between that 2001 holding and more recent decisions by the Supreme Court, in which it has struck down other campaign finance provisions as violating the First Amendment.

This promises to be an eventful Supreme Court session. There is no doubt that as these and other cases are being argued and decided, everyone from the president to the typical American will be paying attention to what happens in the highest court in the land.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC