The Supreme Court is preparing to tackle a range of critical cases in the upcoming year, with rulings anticipated on divisive topics such as a nationwide TikTok ban, age verification for online pornography, and taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.
Building on a previous term that featured decisions on presidential immunity, the administrative state, and government censorship, the Court now turns to new legal challenges with significant societal implications.
The future of TikTok, one of the most popular social media platforms in the U.S., is uncertain as the Court reviews a law that could lead to its nationwide ban. The law, set to take effect on January 19, would require TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the platform or face a ban. TikTok has filed an emergency application to block the law, arguing it would “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms.” Supporters of the ban, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, cite national security concerns and potential Chinese influence as key reasons for the legislation. Oral arguments are set for January 10.
Another major case involves laws enacted in 19 states requiring age verification for accessing online pornography. The central focus is a Texas law mandating that websites publishing “sexual material harmful to minors” ensure users are over 18. Opponents, including the Free Speech Coalition, argue that such laws infringe on adults’ access to constitutionally protected content and raise concerns about online privacy and free speech, while advocates highlight the need to protect minors.
A separate case will explore religious exemptions, with Catholic Charities challenging Wisconsin’s unemployment program. The organization seeks to opt out of the state program due to religious objections and participate in an alternative program operated by the Wisconsin Bishops. The case will examine the boundaries of religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
The Court will also address whether states can restrict Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Originating in South Carolina, the case challenges the exclusion of abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds for family planning services. Planned Parenthood contends that Medicaid recipients have the right to select their healthcare provider, while opponents argue that taxpayer money should not support organizations that provide abortions.
These cases are poised to shape critical aspects of law and public policy in the coming year.
