The U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up for a pivotal autumn, with a docket packed full of high-profile cases and mounting scrutiny over its emergency decision-making. As the nation’s highest court prepares for its post-summer conference on September 29, 2025, legal observers and the public alike are watching closely—not just for the outcomes of headline-grabbing cases, but for what the justices’ actions reveal about the Court’s evolving approach to justice and precedent.
According to a report published on August 18, 2025, among the 12 notable cases slated for discussion at the upcoming conference are Ghislaine Maxwell’s bid for immunity, a challenge to former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policy, and a major Second Amendment case. These cases, each with its own set of legal and political implications, are expected to test the justices’ interpretations of law and their willingness to revisit or reinforce established precedents.
But the Supreme Court’s recent activity hasn’t been limited to its future docket. On August 14, 2025, the Court issued a significant ruling in the NetChoice case, denying an application to block a controversial Mississippi law. This law requires social media websites to verify the ages of their users and obtain parental consent before granting access to minors. Critics argue that it forces Mississippians to hand over sensitive personal data, potentially infringing on constitutionally protected speech.
The district court had initially blocked the law, citing likely First Amendment violations. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put that injunction on hold, and the Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, allowed the stay to remain—leaving the law in effect for now. The only written opinion came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred but offered a nuanced rationale. He wrote, “NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members’ First Amendment rights under this Court’s precedents.” Yet, he ultimately voted not to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay because “NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time.”
This brief statement has sparked debate among legal analysts, who point out that Kavanaugh’s reasoning appears at odds with his previous opinions on emergency relief. According to the newsletter One First, Kavanaugh has historically emphasized the importance of likelihood of success on the merits, especially in First Amendment cases. In fact, he has previously written, “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” The newsletter’s author notes, “Kavanaugh’s statement in NetChoice is inconsistent with both his general approach to emergency applications…and his specific approach to balancing the equities in First Amendment cases.”
This perceived inconsistency is not lost on Court watchers. Some argue that the justices have abandoned traditional balancing of equities in emergency applications, focusing instead on their preliminary views of the merits—particularly in cases involving the federal government. Others suggest that the Court’s approach has shifted depending on the party seeking relief, with the government often receiving more favorable treatment than private litigants. As One First puts it, “There is no persuasive explanation for why the federal government, to obtain emergency relief, does not need to make the same showing as other parties.”
These questions about consistency and fairness are surfacing at a time when the Court’s legitimacy is under increasing scrutiny. The NetChoice decision is just one example. Four significant emergency applications were pending as of August 18, 2025, including two from the Trump administration and two from a Florida death-row inmate, Kayle Bates, who is seeking to block his execution scheduled for August 20. The next ruling on an emergency application will mark the Court’s 123rd such decision this term—a new record, highlighting just how frequently the justices are being asked to intervene on an urgent basis.
Meanwhile, the Court has released its oral argument calendars for the October and November 2025 sittings. Among the most closely watched cases is a re-argument in the Louisiana redistricting dispute, set for October 15. This case, which could have far-reaching implications for voting rights and the balance of political power, is likely to draw national attention. In addition, the Court has expanded public access to its records, launching a digitized compilation of briefs and filings in original jurisdiction cases dating back to 1962. This move is being applauded as a step toward greater transparency, even as critics call for more openness in the Court’s internal deliberations.
Controversy is also swirling around a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s tariffs. In a highly unusual move, Solicitor General Sauer filed a 28(j) letter in the Federal Circuit, warning that if the tariffs are blocked, the United States could face catastrophic economic consequences. The letter, which reportedly stated that “before President Trump’s tariffs, the United States ‘was a dead country,’ and that, if the Federal Circuit rules against the tariffs…we could see ‘a 1929-style result,’ in which ‘people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened,’” has raised eyebrows for its alarmist tone. As One First observed, “The letter strikes me as an alarming new low,” especially coming from an office known for its integrity and candor.
Adding to the mix is renewed media discussion about Kim Davis’s certiorari petition related to the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized constitutional protection for same-sex marriage. While some speculate that the Court could revisit this landmark decision, most analysts believe that there are not currently five votes to overturn Obergefell. However, the fact that the Court ordered a response to Davis’s petition—after the respondents had initially waived their right to file a brief—has fueled speculation. As the newsletter notes, “It’s understandable that the Court’s behavior has left so many folks skeptical of its fidelity to even a recent precedent like Obergefell.”
All of these developments come as the Court faces ongoing criticism from across the political spectrum. Some progressives argue that the justices have been too willing to side with conservative executive actions, sometimes at the expense of individual rights. Others on the right contend that the Court has not gone far enough in rolling back what they see as judicial overreach from previous eras. Centrist voices, meanwhile, call for greater consistency and transparency, warning that the Court’s perceived unpredictability could erode public trust.
With so many consequential cases on the horizon and questions swirling about its internal processes, the Supreme Court is entering a period of heightened scrutiny and significance. The justices’ decisions in the coming months—both on the merits and in emergency applications—will not only shape the law, but may also determine how the public perceives the Court’s role as an impartial arbiter in an increasingly polarized society.
As the new term approaches, all eyes will be on the marble halls of One First Street, waiting to see how the Court navigates its most challenging tests yet.
