WE LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF THE WEEK OF JUNE 23 2025

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This week. The Supreme Court issued several decisions during the
final week of its twenty twenty four to twenty twenty
five term, and I thought it might be good to
kind of cover some of those really quickly for our
episode this week. First case was Trump versus Cossa. What
It's About. The case involved a challenge to the power
of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions court orders
the block of policy everywhere in the US, and we

(00:22):
saw this repeatedly. I think he's the president that has
the most of these injunctions ever. The case was tied
to debates over policies like birthrights citizenship, but the ruling
focus on the scope of judicial power rather than the
policy itself, so it did not look at birthrights citizenship,
and a six to three ruling, the Court limited the
ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, basically meaning

(00:45):
federal judges cannot easily block government policies for the entire
country anymore. This makes it harder for a single judge
to stop at precedent's agenda nationwide. It gives more power
to the executive branch. Number two this week was Kennedy
versus Braidwood Man Management and It's a Christian owned business.
And individuals challenged a federal mandate requiring health insurance to

(01:06):
cover prep and medication that prevents HIV, arguing it violated
their religious beliefs. The case also questioned whether the members
of the US Preventative Services Task Force, which makes these recommendations,
needed to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the state,
and another six to three ruling, the court hill the
task Force members are inferior officers and do not require

(01:28):
presidential nomination or Senate confirmation. The court ruled against the
other religious objections, upholding the mandate. In other words, businesses
and individuals cannot refuse to cover HIV prevention drugs and
health plans based on religious beliefs. Number three was the
FCC versus Consumers' Research and What It's about Is. The
case challenged a federal program that subsidizes telephone and internet

(01:51):
services for schools, libraries, rural areas, and low income communities.
Opponents argued that Congress improperly delegated its lawmaking to the
Federal Communications Commission under the non delegation doctrine, and another
six to three ruling the Court up held the program,
rejecting the challenge in declining to revive the non delegation doctrine, Basically,

(02:12):
the government can continue funding internet and phone access for schools, libraries,
and low income areas. The Court said Congress can give
agencies like the SEC power to manage these programs without
overstepping constitutional limits. And I think the last one was
a free speech coalition. Versus Paxton, Texas passed the law
requiring age verification for accessing websites with sexually explicit content

(02:36):
to protect minors. Free speech advocates argue the law was
too vague and violated adults First Amendment rights by restricting
access to legal content, and a six to three ruling,
the Court upheld the Texas law, so websites with adult
content must verify users' ages to keep kids from accessing it.
The Court said this doesn't violate free speech because it's
a minor restriction on adults to protect children.