Another Banner Week at the Supreme Court for the ACLJ

In a quartet of major rulings handed down this week, the Supreme Court delivered sweeping victories for constitutional order, parental rights, and judicial restraint.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood vindicates South Carolina’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and stands as another victory for pro-lifers as we continue the fight to protect life. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld Texas’ age-verification law for pornographic websites, applying intermediate scrutiny. In Trump v. CASA, the Court adopted the limits on nationwide injunctions that we urged in our West Virginia brief, reining in lower court overreach and reaffirming that judges must act only for the parties before them. And in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court ruled 6-3 that a public school could not override Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents’ decisions to opt their children out of instruction that violated their religious beliefs – vindicating parental rights and restoring proper limits on government authority in the classroom.

At the ACLJ, we are thrilled because the Supreme Court followed the path laid out in our briefs: Apply precedent, respect constitutional boundaries, and let elected officials – not judges – set policy. Together, these rulings signal a turning point in the Court’s approach to cultural, procedural, and federalist questions – and are a powerful affirmation of the principles for which we’ve long fought.

Mahmoud v. Taylor

The Supreme Court delivered a resounding victory for religious liberty and parental rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming what faithful families across America have long known: Parents, not government bureaucrats, have the fundamental constitutional right to direct the religious and moral upbringing of their children. This landmark 6-3 decision sided with parents of diverse religious backgrounds who sought to protect their children from mandatory classroom instruction featuring storybooks that directly contradicted their sincere religious convictions.

The ACLJ was proud to stand with these courageous parents by filing a powerful amicus brief that emphasized part of the constitutional framework the Court ultimately adopted in its majority opinion. Justice Alito’s masterful decision directly incorporated the ACLJ’s legal reasoning and constitutional arguments, recognizing that government schools cannot substantially burden religious exercise through coercive indoctrination that undermines parental authority. Our brief’s emphasis on the coercive nature of mandatory classroom instruction, the fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s faith formation, and the government’s duty to provide reasonable religious accommodations highlighted bedrock principles upon which the Court built its historic ruling. This tremendous victory reminds government officials that they serve families – not the other way around – and that in America, the Constitution still protects the sacred right of parents to raise their children according to their deeply held religious beliefs.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood

The Supreme Court issued a major pro-life victory in Medina v. Planned Parenthood. In a decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court ruled that Medicaid’s “any-qualified-provider” clause does not confer an enforceable private right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – doing exactly as we laid out in our brief, that the Court should reaffirm its precedents in that spending-power statutes require “clear and unambiguous” rights-creating language. This means that states, including South Carolina, may block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics without the fear of being sued in federal court.

This ruling vindicates the ACLJ’s position and amicus brief urging the Court to let elected officials, rather than unelected judges, determine funding decisions regarding our taxpayer dollars and the abortion industry. It strikes the right balance, affirming that Medicaid recipients lack a private cause of action to challenge provider exclusions, while preserving the authority of Congress and the Executive branch to oversee funding conditions. As a result, states are now empowered to pursue pro-life policies without judicial interference, reinforcing proper boundaries between the branches and marking another win for judicial restraint.

Trump v. CASA

The Supreme Court also delivered a landmark victory, siding firmly with the ACLJ’s position, by curtailing the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. In its ruling today, the Court affirmed that such sweeping orders exceed the traditional jurisdiction of trial courts, just as ACLJ argued in its amicus brief on behalf of West Virginia. The majority opinion closely referenced foundational cases such as Grupo Mexicano, along with historical precedent concerning Article III limits – key arguments highlighted in our brief. By rejecting the modern expansion of universal injunctions and explicitly invoking the cases we discussed, the Court underscored that equitable relief must be grounded in the genuine interests of specific litigants, not wielded as a nationwide veto.

This outcome is a big win for judicial restraint and separation of powers, reinforcing the principle that one judge should not be able to reshape federal policy for the entire nation. The decision restores constitutional balance by confining courts to their proper role and steering clear of policy-making – a core principle the ACLJ has championed from the outset. With this ruling, the Court sent a clear message: District judges must stay within their lane, acting only upon the parties before them. This marks a significant step forward in restraining judicial overreach and ensuring that our constitutional framework – especially the roles of the judiciary, legislature, and executive – remains intact.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

The Supreme Court delivered another significant victory in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, upholding Texas’ age-verification law in a 6-3 ruling. The majority, led by Justice Thomas, made some major changes in this area of law. First, the Court noted that obscenity is not protected speech, and thus gave Texas more leeway to protect children from online explicit material. Second, Thomas argued that protecting children is a significant state interest and that courts should respect efforts like age verification as well-tailored efforts to achieve that goal.

This ruling is yet another major win for commonsense governance. Free speech is a vital American interest, but surely the First Amendment does not protect explicit material online in the same way it protects political speech. By accepting intermediate scrutiny and grounding its ruling in established precedent, the Court upheld the constitutional structure. It deferred to legislative judgment, all while preserving core First Amendment values for adults. The ruling reinforces that the judiciary must respect state authority to protect children and avoid overreaching into policy decisions best left to legislatures.

Looking Ahead

The ACLJ celebrates these four vital victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet we cannot rest on our laurels. The far Left continues to attack life and liberty in courtrooms nationwide. With the support of generous ACLJ Members and Champions, we can continue to defend the Constitution.