The Supreme Court Does The ‘Right’ Thing

The month of June in the year 2025 should be recorded in the history books as perhaps having had some of the Supreme Court’s most controversial rulings. They were landmarks, clearly ideological in nature, and have a profound effect on the American people and the culture war. On issues such as abortion, transgenderism, sexually explicit content in school books for children, the Court ruled in favor of traditional conservative values, parental rights, and the Trump administration.

In last week’s article, I discussed the Tennessee law before the Supreme Court (United States v. Skrmetti) that prohibits the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children. This was a landmark ruling for the defense, traditional conservative values, and the Trump administration. The Court's decision, however, did create controversy and outrage. The Democrats, and the transgender community, and its supporters cried out in desperation about how the ruling will threaten the health of children.

Little did any of us know at the time, however, the Supreme Court was not yet finished. In 6 to 3 rulings, the Court, once again along ideological lines, did not disappoint the Trump administration and conservatives.  The rulings spanned the political and cultural spectrum. Here follows several of the Court’s rulings.

> PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES V. CASA INC. This case involved an executive order by President Trump that would place restrictions on Birthright Citizenship, the automatic application of citizenship to the child of an illegal immigrant born in the U.S. The case brought into question limiting the judicial overreach of federal district judges from issuing universal injunctions, which in this case suspended the president’s order, which was titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, “Federal Courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

Immediately following the 6 -3 ruling, President Trump issued a statement, "Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” by federal district judges working in unison with the Democratic Party to undermine the president’s agenda.

> MEDINA V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTH ATLANTIC. In a 6 -3 ruling, the Court ruled in favor of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, which prohibited the use of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “…laws governing Medicaid do not allow patients to sue when a state ends coverage for their preferred provider.” 

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster (R) issued a statement, “Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values, and today, we are finally victorious.” Pro-life groups expressed their glee and hope on what the ruling might represent. The Christian pro-life organization A Moment of Hope issued a statement, “We are jubilant that the Supreme Court has upheld the state's right to withhold funds from an organization which has made a lucrative business of murder under the guise of healthcare.”

Speaking for the administration, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “The Supreme Court upheld a state effort to withhold Medicaid funding from a Planned Parenthood affiliate. The president has always maintained that Americans should not be forced to violate their conscience and their religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions. We’re glad the Supreme Court ruled on that side.” 

President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we’ve seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful power of the president. It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation.”

> FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. V. PAXTON, ATT. GEN. OF TEXAS. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled in favor of the Texas law that requires websites that provide adult content material to verify the age of the user. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Adults don’t have a First Amendment right to avoid age verification, and the law’s intent is clearly to restrict minors' access. Any burdens on free expression caused by the law are incidental and merit only intermediate scrutiny," the ruling added.

In writing for the minority, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, “While children have no constitutional right to view pornographic material, adults do, and Texas’ law unduly burdens that right. Kagan described age verification as having a chilling effect on free speech consumption, deterring adults from engaging with pornographic material.”

> MAHMOUD V. TAYLOR. This case involved Maryland’s Montgomery County Board of Education, and its introduction of LGBTQ content in storybooks for elementary school English curriculum. These included sexually explicit and gender identity material. In 2022, the Board initially allowed parents to opt-out of the instruction for their children. However, when the Board rescinded the opt-out policy, compelling students to participate, parents sued. 

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court found for the plaintiff-parents. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “the policy poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices of the parents. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.” President Trump commented that this was a “tremendous ruling for parents.”

Each of these cases represents a resounding victory for traditional values and the rule of law.