The U.S. Supreme Court finished its 2024 term this week with a bang, handing down critical decisions just before departing for an unprecedentedly-quite-5-month recess. Major, major decisions as controlled by the conservative majority on the bench. These decisions will define the scope of judicial power, shape the future of education policy, and protect minors from online harm. Perhaps the most consequential of these rulings was one that prohibited use of universal injunctions that stop executive actions across the entire country. With this decision, there are palpable signs of a changed judicial philosophy.
In the most closely-watched case of the term, Trump v CASA, the Court grappled with the highly controversial practice of nationwide injunctions. The previous Trump administration argued that these injunctions were an example of judicial overreach. Ultimately, the justices of the Supreme Court sided with their opinion. Primarily, this ruling indicates a turn away from wide-sweeping judicial remedies to more prescriptive solutions directed at identified plaintiffs.
Limiting Judicial Authority
With its recent decision in Biden v. Su, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has ruled decisively against the use of universal injunctions in cases brought against executive actions. Former President Trump’s appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote the majority opinion. She made a point of stressing that the Executive needs to comply with the law. She cautioned that the judiciary can’t wield boundless power to impose this requirement.
“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” – Amy Coney Barrett
“But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
This ruling indicates a clear intent to curtail the power of lower courts to issue blanket injunctions that affect national policies. This decision reinforces the idea that remedies need to be tailored to the problems that each group of plaintiffs faces. It steers away from implementing broad, big-ticket initiatives that would disproportionately impact thousands of residents.
Besides this cornerstone case, the right-wing supermajority joined forces to provide two other truly landmark decisions. The first decision gave parents the right to remove educational content that included LGBTQ themes. This is indicative of the contentious national debates surrounding parental rights in education. The other ruling enabled Texas to require age verification for users accessing online pornography, aimed at protecting minors from inappropriate content.
Educational Policy and Parental Rights
The Supreme Court’s ruling on school instructional material has created widespread backlash over the issue of parental rights and school inclusion. The ruling allows parents to exclude their children from lessons or materials related to LGBTQ issues, raising questions about the balance between parental authority and educational inclusivity.
This is where Justice Samuel Alito decided to intervene. He argued that these types of policies could communicate an exclusionary message regarding parents’ religious beliefs.
“Conveys that parents’ religious views are not welcome in the ‘fully inclusive environment’ that the Board purports to foster,” – Samuel Alito
Her comment illustrates the difficulty of providing an inclusive climate for all students. It further highlights the necessity of honoring faith and practice of those families. The ruling has important ramifications for how school boards should create curricula and policies related to sensitive, controversial, or race-related content.
The second decision is part of a pattern of increasing focus on preventing children from accessing harmful online content, particularly sexually explicit material. The court upheld Texas’s law requiring users to authenticate their age before they are allowed to view such content. This decision represents a deep commitment to strengthening protections for youth in our new digital landscape.
Fragmentation Among Justices
Such decisions belied the veneer of harmony that painted the deep ideological block that comprised the conservative majority. In cases such as Kennedy v Braidwood Management, ideological divides emerged. Justice Kavanaugh at least implicitly affirmed that the Senate approval requirement does not apply to a new, independent task force consisting of “inferior officers.” This ruling will have effects on many federal appointee—state governor structures.
That is the takeaway from this Supreme Court’s unprecedentedly unilateralist, proexecutive power decisions. Yet alongside their successes, they have taken on some deeply controversial public policy — particularly around education and online safety. As legal scholars and political analysts continue to digest these rulings, the impact on future court cases becomes clearer by the day.
The justices will return to work in October. They are poised to take on new cases and are poised to fundamentally reconstitute foundational aspects of law and governance in America.
