Supreme Court Rulings That Could Change America in 2025

From puberty blockers to TikTok, online porn and ghost guns, major Supreme Court decisions are expected in 2025 that could have a massive influence on American culture. Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles are also likely to make an unscheduled appearance.

Here are some of the major opinions that are likely to be delivered before next summer:

Puberty Blockers

Nothing on the court's schedule ignites the kind of heated public debate generated by U.S. v Skrmetti, a case about medical care for transgender teens.

On one side are the parents of transgender children and teens, allied with the Biden administration, who say that young people should be allowed to use puberty blockers, hormones and, if needed, surgery to align with their chosen gender.

On the other side is Tennessee, and over 20 other states in support, that have banned minors' access to puberty blockers, hormone therapy or sex change surgery and say it is harmful to young people.

The Tennessee law, which was enacted in March, prohibits health care providers from providing hormones or puberty blockers to "enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex."

Two transgendered boys and one transgendered girl are challenging the law, claiming that it violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

A federal district court struck down the Tennessee law and that decision was overturned on appeal.

Benjamin J. Fenton, healthcare litigator at Fenton Jurkowitz Law Group, told Newsweek that the case is "being closely watched and politicized because of incoming President Trump and Vice President Vance's opposition to gender-affirming care."

"It is possible that the Supreme Court will find Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care unconstitutional. In doing so, the Court would be setting a precedent for the new presidential administration and, in turn, sending a message deterring the enactment of similar healthcare and anti-LGBTQIA legislation."

"Because Skrmetti is one of the first of many state-level transgender care SCOTUS cases, the outcome will have a broad impact," he said.

Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, told Newsweek that he would be "very surprised" if the Supreme Court struck down the Tennessee law.

"It's true that the law treats underage transgender treatments differently from non-transgender treatments, but the law does not discriminate on the basis of sex —both male and female transgender treatments are barred for minors.

"The lower courts are all over the map on equal protection cases, and the government is arguing that transgenderism is a protected class. I suspect the court took this case to limit equal protection challenges to traditional inherent characteristics like race and gender."

Presidential Immunity

It is not on the Supreme Court docket, but the court will often take important cases on short notice, especially if it involves the presidency.

On December 16, Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Trump does not have presidential immunity from sentencing in his Stormy Daniels hush money case — the first time that a court has properly set the limits on the Supreme Court's historic July 1 ruling, which gave Trump wide protection from prosecution.

The president-elect was convicted in a New York court in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records for hush money payments made to former adult film actor Stormy Daniels.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers told Newsweek that the hush money case is a state case, so Trump can't oust the prosecutor, as he did in his federal cases.

"The cash money case is a state prosecution and it will continue," Gillers said.

Trump will almost certainly appeal Merchan's ruling to the New York Court of Appeals.

Beyond that, the Supreme Court will likely hear the case, given the serious constitutional issues it raises.

On Monday, Trump's spokesman Steven Cheung, suggested that Merchan was "in direct violation of the Supreme Court's decision on immunity."

Ghost Guns

The arguments over the issue of untraceable ghost guns has been given new urgency with the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

The man accused of the killing, Luigi Mangione, is alleged to have used a self-assembled ghost gun, which comes without serial numbers or traceability.

In 2025, the Supreme Court will deliver its opinion on the legality of such guns in Garland v. VanDerStok.

It comes after both conservative and liberal justices asked some tough and pointed questions to a lawyer representing a ghost gun manufacturer during oral arguments on October 8.

The case revolves around a challenge to a regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that places new requirements on previously untraceable self-assembly ghost guns.

The ATF rule, introduced in April 2022, amends the definition of a firearm to include self-assembly kits. It also stipulated that partially assembled weapons that can easily be converted to full firearms must be registered as guns.

Germain, the Syracuse University law professor, told Newsweek that in the Loper Bright case, the current Supreme Court limited the so-called Chevron doctrine, which allows the federal government to expand laws through administrative regulations.

That means that the court may be able to side with the ghost gun manufacturers and against the Biden administration.

"In overturning the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright, the current court has limited the executive branch's authority to expand laws through administrative regulations. So one can see how the plaintiffs in the VanDerStok case might hope that the Court will prevent a regulation which limits the unregulated sale of ghost guns," he said.

Access to Porn Sites

In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court will consider a Texas law that requires porn websites to verify a user's age.

The Texas law, enacted in June 2023, is designed to prevent minors from accessing porn.

In addition, porn websites must display health warnings about porn addiction and the potential harms that porn can do to the adult mind.

Other states that introduced age verification laws include Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Eric C. Chaffee, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told Newsweek that Texas will have to overcome a high standard of proof if it wants to win the case.

While the First Amendment's free speech protections are broad, there are exceptions, including "obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography," Chaffee said.

"In regard to other forms of speech, the Supreme Court is likely to apply strict scrutiny to laws that regulate speech based upon its content. Strict scrutiny requires proof that the law at issue is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest," he said.

Texas, therefore, will have to show that this was the least restrictive way it would protect minors from pornography — a tough standard for Texas to meet.

The Legality of TikTok

On December 18, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear TikTok's challenge to a new law that will force its Chinese parent company to sell the popular social media site.

The new law, which comes into effect on January 19, will give parent company ByteDance nine months to sell TikTok, given Congress' concerns about Chinese government harvesting of U.S. users' information.

The Supreme Court is hearing the case on an expedited calendar, with oral arguments on January 10, just nine days before the new law comes into effect.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, TikTok's legal team wrote: "Congress's unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this Nation presents grave constitutional problems that this Court likely will not allow to stand."

However, in a December 6 ruling, a federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. government's concerns about the Chinese government's data harvesting was a "compelling national security interest."