Policy Recap 19: Parents Can Opt Children Out of LGBTQ+ (Mahmoud v. Taylor)

Executive Orders

EO 14310 Further Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay

Extends the enforcement timeline associated with prior executive actions targeting TikTok operations in the United States. Building on Executive Orders 14166 and 14258, this order grants an additional delay in implementing restrictions while ongoing divestment and compliance negotiations continue. It directs federal agencies to maintain oversight of the transaction process, safeguard national security interests, and ensure transparency throughout the review period. The order also requires updated reporting on the status of divestiture efforts and any foreign ownership concerns related to TikTok’s operations.

US Congress

S.J.Res.31 Disapproving EPA’s Reclassification of Major Emission Sources
Introduced by Sen. John Curtis, this resolution nullifies an Environmental Protection Agency rule that reclassified certain major pollution sources as area sources under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Opponents argued the rule weakened emissions standards, allowing previously regulated industrial facilities to reduce controls, potentially increasing air pollution and public health risks.

S.J.Res.13 Disapproving Changes to Bank Merger Review Standards
Introduced by Sen. John Kennedy, this resolution overturns a rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that revised how applications under the Bank Merger Act are reviewed. Critics contended the rule would have made it easier for large banks to consolidate, potentially limiting competition and reducing consumer choice in the financial sector.

SCOTUS

Riley v. Bondi
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the 30-day deadline to challenge a final removal order under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule—not a jurisdictional bar—allowing certain petitions filed after that window to still be considered. Justice Alito wrote for the Court, finding that Pierre Riley’s removal order became final when DHS issued its administrative order, and subsequent CAT proceedings did not affect that finality. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of Riley’s petition and emphasized that filing deadlines must meet a high bar to be considered jurisdictional. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined in full; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson joined only in part, with Sotomayor dissenting in part. The ruling preserves access to judicial review for immigrants seeking CAT protection, even amid expedited removal.

Gutierrez v. Saenz

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring a §1983 due process challenge against the state’s postconviction DNA testing procedures. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor found that Gutierrez plausibly alleged a liberty interest in accessing evidence for DNA testing, and that a declaratory judgment could redress his injury by removing unlawful procedural barriers under Texas’s Article 64. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, which had denied standing on redressability grounds. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson, and Barrett joined; Justice Barrett concurred in part. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. The ruling affirms that prisoners may challenge state procedures that obstruct access to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence—even when denial is based on sentencing-stage innocence.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that Medicaid’s “any-qualified-provider” provision does not unambiguously confer an individual right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch reversed the Fourth Circuit, emphasizing that Congress must speak with a “clear voice” to authorize private enforcement under spending-power statutes like Medicaid. The Court concluded the statute lacked the necessary rights-creating language, reaffirming that only Congress—not the courts—can authorize such suits. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the majority; Justice Thomas filed a concurrence. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented. The ruling curtails Medicaid patients’ ability to sue states over provider exclusions, including cases involving Planned Parenthood.

Hewitt v. United States
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that defendants whose prior firearm-related sentences under 18 U.S.C. §924(c) have been vacated qualify for retroactive relief under the First Step Act—even if they had originally been sentenced before the Act’s enactment. Justice Jackson wrote for the Court, interpreting the Act’s language to mean that a sentence “has not been imposed” if it no longer legally exists. The Court emphasized that vacated sentences are treated as void ab initio, thus clearing the way for resentencing under the Act’s more lenient provisions. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined Jackson’s majority opinion. Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett dissented. The ruling significantly expands eligibility for reduced mandatory minimums in federal resentencings.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s age-verification law (H.B. 1181), ruling it constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. The law requires commercial websites with content deemed obscene to minors to verify that users are 18 or older. Justice Thomas wrote for the Court, holding that while the law incidentally burdens adults’ access to protected speech, it permissibly advances the State’s interest in shielding children from sexual content. The Court emphasized that age verification is a traditional, legitimate tool and need not satisfy strict scrutiny. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the majority. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The ruling affirms states’ authority to impose digital age checks without infringing adult free speech rights.

Mahmoud v. Taylor
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that public school parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction allowing their children to opt out of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Writing for the Court, Justice Alito emphasized that the Montgomery County Board of Education’s refusal to notify parents or allow opt outs burdens their constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, as protected under Yoder and the Free Exercise Clause. The ruling requires the Board to provide advance notice and permit excusals during litigation. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the majority. Justice Thomas filed a concurrence. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented. The decision reinforces parental rights in public education where religious values are at stake.

FCC v. Consumers’ Research
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, rejecting claims that its funding structure violated the nondelegation doctrine. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan held that Congress provided an “intelligible principle” in directing the FCC to raise only funds “sufficient” to support affordable telecommunications access for underserved populations. The Court also affirmed the FCC’s oversight of the Fund’s private administrator, distinguishing it from unconstitutional private delegations. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined the opinion. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson filed concurrences. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The ruling preserves a key funding mechanism for broadband access in rural and low-income communities.

Kennedy, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
In a 5–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the HHS Secretary complies with the Appointments Clause. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the Court, emphasizing that the Secretary’s at-will removal power and supervisory authority over the Task Force demonstrate sufficient control to classify them as inferior officers. The Court rejected claims that statutory language requiring Task Force “independence” imposes for-cause removal protections or prevents Secretary oversight. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson joined the majority. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. The ruling affirms executive appointment and oversight authority over the Task Force’s preventive healthcare recommendations.