The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it will review the constitutionality of a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in a case involving Louisiana’s congressional map, which was amended to add a second Black-majority district. The justices will consider whether using race to create such districts as a remedy for violations of the act conflicts with the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Reuters reports. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. The decision is expected by June 2026. 

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a defibrillator implanted in Byron Black’s chest does not have to be deactivated before the state executes him next week. The Nashville Banner reports that the decision reverses an opinion from Davidson County Chancellor Russell Perkins that directed the state to disable the device. Perkins issued that order after hearing from medical professionals that the device could put Black at risk of a prolonged and torturous death. The state appealed that ruling to the high court, arguing it could not deactivate Black’s defibrillator on the day of the execution, and asking whether it could be done the day before. The justices said that because Black would not agree to that timeframe, the lower court order was operating “effectively and practically” as a stay of its execution order, which a trial court does not have the authority to “stay, modify or condition.” The court did note at the end of the opinion though that nothing in its decision prevents the parties from reaching an agreement on deactivation of the device. The decision comes after news that Nashville General Hospital had not agreed to perform the procedure, according to The Tennessean. Black’s lawyers continue to pursue other remedies, calling on Gov. Bill Lee to halt the execution and asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay.

The TBA Academy offers an exciting opportunity for a limited number of TBA members to be admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. The next admission ceremony will take place Dec. 1 in Washington, D.C. In addition to taking part in an admission ceremony before the U.S. Supreme Court, participants will gather for a special celebration dinner and a tour of the U.S. Capitol. Each attendee also will receive three hours of prepaid credits to use toward future TBA CLE programming. The group will stay at the Hay Adams Hotel. The cost to register is $1,250 for TBA members, which includes the application fee, one hotel night, dinner on Sunday, and breakfast, lunch and transportation to the court on Monday. Guests can be added to the trip for a cost of $500 each. Those interested in participating should complete the online interest form by Aug. 5. Applicants then will be contacted with instructions to complete the full application process. Participants will be selected on a first-come basis. Contact TBAAcademy@tnbar.org with any questions.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users accessing online pornography. It was the first time the court has imposed requirements on adult consumers in order to protect minors, NPR reports. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, affirms similar laws passed in nearly half of U.S. states, including in Tennessee. The ruling marks a setback for the Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment industry group that had challenged the law, arguing that it violated the First Amendment guarantee to free speech and expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the constitutionality of state laws that bar transgender athletes from participating on sports teams that align with their preferred gender. The court will take up two state laws — one from Idaho and one from West Virginia — in its next term, SCOTUSblog reports. Idaho was the first state to enact such a ban. It was sued by a transgender woman who wanted to try out for the Boise State University women’s track and cross-country teams. The West Virginia case centers on a 14-year-old who wanted to participate on the middle school girls’ sports teams. Lower court and appellate court rulings barred both states from enforcing their laws. The plaintiffs had urged the Supreme Court to let those rulings stand.

The U.S Supreme Court today agreed to hear a number of new cases in its next term, Bloomberg Law reports. These include a request from two Republican campaign committees to strike down federal caps on the money that can be spent on advertisements in coordination with congressional candidates; an appeal to shield an internet provider from a $1 billion lawsuit over customers’ unauthorized downloads of copyrighted works; the power of judges to sentence fugitives; and how much flexibility pension actuaries have when calculating money owed by companies withdrawing from a multiemployer plan. It also asked the government to comment on whether it should hear an appeal of the verdict rendered in the Roundup litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines Friday to curtail judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, The Hill reports. The ruling allows the Trump administration to partially enforce the president’s executive order limiting the U.S. Constitution’s “birthright citizenship” provision to children with at least one parent with permanent legal status. “These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions’ — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. The decision narrows the lower court rulings blocking enforcement of the order to the 22 states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that challenged the order. It does not resolve the underlying issue of whether restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional. Three justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, arguing that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” According to The Hill, the administration may resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to deport immigrants to countries not specifically identified in their removal orders while the government appeals a lower court’s order. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices paused a ruling by Massachusetts-based Judge Brian Murphy, which had required the administration to engage in a process designed to address “reasonable fear” of being tortured. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in a lengthy opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dispute stems from guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) earlier this year, which instructed agents to take “all appropriate actions” to remove noncitizens still in the United States despite an order for deportation. Four undocumented immigrants with deportation orders sued over the policy.

In a 5-4 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Michigan prisoner is entitled to a jury trial on claims that a corrections officer interfered with his ability to file grievances, a move that could expand access to jury trials in prison litigation cases according to Bloomberg Law. The court sided with inmate Kyle Richards, who alleged that a corrections officer destroyed his sexual harassment complaints, preventing him from exhausting administrative remedies required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The majority wrote that the exhaustion issue is so intertwined with the merits of Richards’ claim that it falls under the protections of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Roberts was joined by four other justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissent joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee’s law restricting certain gender-transition treatments for minors, rejecting a legal challenge brought by three transgender adolescents, their families and a Memphis-based medical provider. In a 6-3 decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the court sided with Tennessee and dismissed claims that the law — which bans puberty blockers and hormone therapies for individuals under 18 — violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, National Public Radio reports. The case originated from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP following passage of SB1/HB1. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court’s role is to determine whether the law complies with the Constitution, not to weigh its policy merits. The justices found that the law does not discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status and thus does not require heightened judicial scrutiny. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent saying the decison would cause "untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti reacted to the ruling in a press release saying, “In [this] historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism.” In contrast, Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, said, “We will continue to stand with transgender people in Tennessee and are committed to realizing a world where all people belong, are valued, and can access the necessary healthcare they need.”