Office of the Attorney General Preview of Pending U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Press Releases

06/10/2025

Office of the Attorney General Preview of Pending U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

All,

Once again, as we near the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term, we are going to start to see decisions in some of the most consequential cases on the docket, including those involving access to healthcare, voting rights, gender-affirming care, book bans, and birthright citizenship.

See below for summaries of the remaining major pending cases where Connecticut submitted briefs. Please don’t hesitate to reach out either before or after these decisions drop with any questions.

A note about the shadow docket: The “shadow docket” is where the Supreme Court weighs in on emergency applications and procedural questions, including stays. These decisions are issued without full briefing or argument. You will continue to see these procedural decisions impacting a number of our major pending cases against the Trump Administration, including DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data and whether the Trump Administration can proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education while our challenges are pending. The Supreme Court will not consider the merits of these cases at this point, and we will continue to litigate these cases in the lower courts.

Birthright Citizenship

Trump v. New Jersey

This case involves President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship. Attorney General Tong joined the attorneys general of 17 other states, the District of Columbia and the City of San Francisco to challenge the lawless order, which eviscerates clear constitutional rights to which all children born in the United States are entitled. In response to the multistate challenge, as well as others filed by other groups, courts have issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking the Trump administration from implementing the unconstitutional order.

The Supreme Court is considering the legality of whether individual district courts can impose a nationwide injunction in this case, and whether states have standing to challenge the executive order. The Supreme Court has not yet heard argument on the broader constitutionality of the elimination of birthright citizenship, which is plainly spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment.

For Attorney General Tong, this fight is personal. Born in Hartford, Connecticut in 1973, he became the first United States citizen in his immediate family by right of his birth on American soil. He was the first Asian American elected to state office in Connecticut history, and the first Chinese American to be elected Attorney General in the nation. Attorney General Tong was at the Supreme Court for oral arguments on the case on May 15.

Click here to view Connecticut’s lawsuit, and here to view the Supreme Court brief.

Access to Preventative Healthcare

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.

This case involves a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that guarantees access to critical preventative care for millions of Americans. Attorney General Tong and 22 other attorneys general asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision in this case that struck-down federal enforcement of the provision.

Before the ACA’s enactment, many Americans struggled to afford preventive services, such as cancer screenings, which can be lifesaving but were often not covered by insurance. Congress enacted the ACA’s preventive services provision to eliminate this financial barrier by requiring most private insurance plans to cover preventive care without charging out-of-pocket costs, including copayments or deductibles.

Click here to view Connecticut’s amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court.

Discriminatory Voting Maps

Louisiana v. Callais

This case involves a Louisiana congressional map that a federal court found in 2022 likely unlawfully diluted the votes of Black residents in violation of the Voting Rights Act. In response, the Louisiana legislature enacted a new map in 2024 to add a second majority-Black district. A self-identified group of “non-African American voters” challenged that map, claiming it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. A panel of judges in the Western District of Louisiana barred the state from using that map, trapping the state between two competing orders and undermining the state’s ability to comply with federal voting rights laws. Attorney General Tong joined with 19 other attorneys general in urging the Supreme Court to uphold the VRA-compliant map and affirm the right of states to redraw maps in response to likely VRA violations.

Click here to view Connecticut’s amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court.

Access to Gender Affirming Care

U.S. v. Skrmetti

This case involves laws in Kentucky and Tennessee that severely limited access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Attorney General Tong joined with 19 other attorneys general in an amicus brief that argues the state bans harm the health and lives of transgender youth by denying medically necessary care, and that the discriminatory bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by singling out medically necessary care for transgender youth while permitting medically necessary care for others.

Click here to view Connecticut’s amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court.

Access to LGBTQ+ Inclusive Books

Mahmoud v. Taylor

This case involves the ability of public schools in Maryland to incorporate LGBTQ+ inclusive books in school criteria without offering parents an opt-out option. The challenge was brought by parents who argued that student exposure to the books violated the parents’ rights to freely exercise their religion. Attorney General Tong joined a coalition of 18 other attorneys general arguing that such curricula falls within public schools’ longstanding authority to foster supportive learning environments and that mere exposure to inclusive books does not force or compel anyone to abandon or act against their religious beliefs. Although the case specifically focuses on policies of the Montgomery Country Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could be consequential for public schools nationwide.

Click here to view Connecticut’s amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court.

Twitter: @AGWilliamTong

Facebook: CT Attorney General

Media Contact:

Elizabeth Benton
elizabeth.benton@ct.gov

Consumer Inquiries:

860-808-5318
attorney.general@ct.gov