The U.S. Supreme Court issued consequential decisions in 2025 that displayed an adherence to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which could inform some of the high-profile issues the court is expected to issue decisions on in the coming year.
The nation’s highest court limited nationwide injunctions, allowed states to prohibit hormone therapy for minors, allowed for restrictions on pornography access and upheld religious liberty.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said 2025 saw the nation’s highest court make an “unprecedented return to the Constitution.”
“It’s a court that has really taken seriously the constitutional limits,” Severino said. “In this past term, we saw that particularly in the context of a lot of decisions touching on some of these social issues going on in the country.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti
One social issue the court touched on was hormone therapy for minors. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the court allowed Tennessee to prevent health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors with the intent of “enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.”
“A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand,” said Jonathan Skrmetti, attorney general of Tennessee.
Severino said this case highlighted the danger of relying on alleged medical consensus when making legal decisions, given the ever-changing nature of scientific discoveries in medicine.
“That should be a decision for the legislature and the people of Tennessee to make when there’s an open question like that, not for courts to get involved,” Severino said.
Trump v. CASA
The court also made a broad decision limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA. The court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump and criticized lower courts for attempting to limit the president’s policy agenda.
“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
The court’s decision still allows individuals to file class action lawsuits and seek widespread relief from the government. However, Severino said, the ruling against nationwide injunctions will likely reduce lawsuits against the government, as individuals will likely seek favorable rulings for broad relief less frequently.
“The government can be stymied by simply having to address innumerable frivolous lawsuits in this way,” Severino said. “With a class, that imbalance is gone because other members of the class are also bound.”
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
The Supreme Court also made additional strides in protecting minors when it upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to view sensitive content online, including pornography.
The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access such speech without first submitting proof of age,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.
Severino pointed out that age and identity verification are necessary for many activities in the digital world nowadays. She argued those verifications should be in place to protect minors from sensitive materials.
Mahmoud v. Taylor and Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
The nation’s highest court also upheld significant religious liberty cases in 2025. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court upheld a challenge from a coalition of parents who wished to opt their children out of reading materials related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
“We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion. “And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.”
The court also unanimously upheld a Catholic charity in Wisconsin’s ability to receive religious tax exemptions despite not proselytizing to those whom it serves.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court, which said the Wisconsin court “imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines,” which violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Severino said the high court’s unanimous decision came out of the lower court’s abandonment of the constitutional principle of free exercise of religion.
“It’s pretty easy for all nine justices to agree that this is a bridge too far,” Severino said.
The court’s decisions in 2025 represented a return to judicial restraint and originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed in 2020, the court has seen a majority of originalist justices influence decisions.
“We have a court where we have a majority of originalist justices and that is a major shift from what we saw for most of the 20th century,” Severino said.
Heading into 2026, Severino expects the court to clarify the originalist position on the executive branch’s authority. She said she will monitor cases involving President Trump’s authority to fire members of executive boards (Trump v. Slaughter ) and to levy tariffs against foreign countries (Learning Resources Inc., v. Trump).
“This term is going to be a big one for understanding the limits of executive power,” Severino said.
