The Supreme Court’s session ended in June with several major decisions that will impact NCLR’s work. Read on for a breakdown of the rulings related to LGBTQ rights. 

United States v. Skrmetti 

On June 18, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s law banning transgender youth healthcare. The result is devastating for youth in Tennessee, who will be deprived of essential, evidence-based care that has been shown to greatly improve their health and wellbeing. At the same time, the court’s decision was narrowly focused and does not automatically extend outside of Tennessee. It’s important to know that no state is required to ban healthcare for transgender youth based on this decision.  

Transgender adolescents need all the same things that every other kid needs: loving families, safe schools, and essential healthcare that lets them grow into happy, thriving adults. Laws like Tennessee’s are cruel and discriminatory, and we will continue to fight them in the courts and state legislatures.   

Shilling v. United States 

In January, President Trump issued an executive order calling for all transgender military service members to be discharged. The order was cruel and demeaning to transgender service members, who have sacrificed so much to serve their country with honor, accusing them of being dishonest and lacking the integrity to serve. Together with our partners at GLAD Law, we filed the first challenge to the President’s new military ban, Talbott v. United States. In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order preventing the administration from implementing the ban, and the government appealed, asking the court of appeals to put the district court’s order on hold and allow it to proceed with discharging transgender service members.  

Another case challenging the ban, Shilling v. United States, was also filed in Washington state, and the district court in that case also ordered the government to halt implementation of the ban. The government appealed that order as well, and when the court of appeals denied its request to let the military resume implementing the ban, the government took its request to the Supreme Court. On May 6, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of the district court’s order in Shilling, allowing the ban to go into effect. 

The Supreme Court’s order opens the door to a cruel and unprecedented purge of highly trained, capable personnel who will lose the careers they have worked so hard to establish, in some cases for decades. Even worse, the military intends to implement the ban using administrative separation, a process normally reserved for cases of misconduct. We will continue to challenge this cruel and discriminatory policy in Talbott, and we believe these brave, honorable service members will be vindicated in the end.  

Mahmoud v. Taylor 

On June 27, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case challenged a school district curriculum policy in Montgomery County, Maryland, which called for LGBTQ-inclusive texts to be used in classrooms and did not allow parents to opt their children out of these lessons. The Supreme Court ruled that the district’s failure to allow parents to opt their children out of reading these books violated their constitutional right to free exercise of religion.  

Although the Court ruled that the parents in the case must be allowed to opt their kids out of reading these texts, it’s important to know that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t prevent school districts from adopting LGBTQ-inclusive curricula. All students benefit from learning about the full diversity of our society, and we will continue to support school policies that specifically include and recognize the experience of LGBTQ people.  

Trump v. CASA 

On June 27, the Supreme Court released its decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a case challenging President Trump’s executive order that attempts to limit the scope of birthright citizenship. The Court did not address the merits of the case. Its decision was limited to considering when federal courts can issue orders that protect not only the plaintiffs in a case, but other people similarly affected by a challenged law or government policy. The court ruled that the lower courts could direct the government not to enforce the executive order against the plaintiffs in the case but could not broadly order the government to stop enforcing the policy against any other person in the country who is affected by it.  

The Supreme Court’s decision takes away an important and flexible tool for parties challenging unconstitutional government action, but it won’t stop us from continuing to challenge the cruel and extreme policies being adopted by this Administration. The Court’s decision recognizes that these challenges can still be brought as class actions, and that parties are entitled to relief that fully remedies violations of their rights. While this ruling might make our work more complicated and more expensive, we will continue to work for court orders that protect everyone affected by the Trump Administration’s hostile anti-LGBTQ agenda.  

Looking Ahead 

On July 3, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear two cases, from Idaho and West Virginia, challenging state policies banning transgender girls from competing on girls’ teams in school sports. The Court’s decision will likely be issued in June of 2026.  

The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have a significant impact on our cases challenging unconstitutional laws in Arizona and Utah that similarly ban transgender girls from competitive sports. In those cases, we have obtained orders from a state court in Utah and from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that prevent these states from enforcing these discriminatory laws against our transgender clients. We will continue to work to protect our clients, and all transgender student athletes, as these cases move forward in the Supreme Court.