Posted on 06/30/2026 6:45:48 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be releasing Opinions from the October 2025 this morning at 10:00.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging the release and we will be following along.
There are 4 decisions pending for this term and we expect all of them will be released today. You can find a list of the cases at October 2025 cases. Note: The word "held" after the case name indicates the Opinion has already been released. The word "Issues" indicates the questions to be resolved by the Court.
You can find the Opinions on this term's previously decided cases at October 2025 Opinions. Today's opinions will be uploaded just after the case is announced from the bench.
Chief Roberts has written 5 opinions, Thomas 6, Alito 6, Sotomayor 6, Kagan 6, Gorsuch 7, Kavanaugh 4, Barrett 7, and Jackson 6. There have been 10 per curiam.
Below are the 4 cases remaining:
Little v Hecox
Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
West Virginia v B.P.J.
Issue Area
(1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Trump v Barbara(birthright citizenship)
Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
NRSC v Federal Election Commission (Campaign Finance)
Issue Area
Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.
Let's see if citizenship in America actually means anything.
Final SCOTUS *Ping* of the term!
I’m expecting a no on birthright citizenship. I will literally fell out of my chair if they ban that. the only reason I’m thinking is because it would be a complete and utter nightmare to facilitate and I’m thinking the Supremes might agree with that.
You could make the ruling effective only prospectively from the date of the decision. That would resolve many of the administrative. But, I’m not optimistic about the decision.
Yeah, the Constitution is very clear.
Thank you!
Thanks again. I appreciate the work you do.
L
Prepare for the screwing.😡
Prepare for the screwing.😡
Close the borders. Freeze immigration indefinitely. Problem solved.
Have a feeling this is going to be a rough day. Hope I’m wrong.
I’ll just toss this in...
Brandon Gill
@realBrandonGill
The children of invading armies aren’t considered American citizens.
The children of foreign diplomats aren’t considered American citizens
So, why would we allow the children of illegal aliens to be American citizens?
01:04
11:28 PM · Jun 28, 2026 584.9K Views
https://x.com/realBrandonGill/status/2071375316958818544
BTW, and on a possibly related note...
Holy Prince Harry, Batman!
Whatever the birthright decision, the Opinion is going to make for an interesting read.
Remember, Trump’s EO is for those coming here going forward. It would not affect those already here.
Two boxes today, with typically 2 opinions per box, means we should get all remaining 4 opinions this morning.
Thanks for the thread!
We have the trans athlete cases.
Justice Kavanaugh has the opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf
The court holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex.
The court holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS,
J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in
which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Good grief, grow up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.