WASHINGTON − TheSupreme Courtis heading into the homestretch for its biggest cases of the year, with potentially landmark opinions still to come on immigration, pornography, religion and health care. Decisions coming as soon as June 26 will resolve whetherPresident Donald Trumpcan enforce hischanges to birthright citizenshipwhile his new policy is being litigated. The ruling could make it harder for judges to block any of the president's policies. The justices will also issue decisions on how states cankeep minors from accessing online pornography, and ondefunding Planned Parenthood. Other rulings will determine ifhealth insurers have to covercertain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs, and whether a federal program thatsubsidizes phone and internet servicesthrough carrier fees is constitutional. TheSupreme Courtstill has to decide the last ofthree casesbrought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class whenstorybooks with LGBTQ+ charactersare being read. More:What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? The court's pending opinion onLouisiana's congressional districtscould impact the 2026 elections as well as affect states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. The court has already issued major rulings onguns,treatments for transgender minors, "reverse discrimination," and how the Americans with Disabilities Act does or doesn't protectretireesand helpstudentswho need specialized learning plans. Here's a look at what's still to come: Trump's executive orderlimiting birthright citizenshiphas been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During theMay 15 oral arguments, none of the Supreme Court justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory on the matter. The administration says Trump's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and pastSupreme Courtdecisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide – or "universal" – court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. The court's conservative majoritysounded sympatheticin April to Maryland parents who raised religious objections to having their elementary school children read books with LGBTQ+ characters. And in a case about Texas' requirement that websites verify users are 18 or over, one justiceexpressed her own parental frustrationover trying to control what her children see on the internet.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said she knows from personal experience how difficult it is to keep up with the content-blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. But while the justices were sympathetic to the purpose of Texas' law, they may decide a lower court didn't sufficiently review whether it violates the First Amendment rights of adults, so it must be reconsidered. Unlike last year, when the court considered two cases about abortion access, that hot-button issue is not directly before the court. But the justicesare decidingwhether to back South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding for other health services because it also provides abortions. The issue is whether the law allows Medicaid patients to sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. The court's decision could affect care options beyond the controversial realm of reproductivehealth care for women. And in the latestconservative challenge to Obamacare, the justices are weighing whether health insurance companies have to provide free access to cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services recommended by a task force. The future of an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans will be decided in the coming days in a case that raised questions about how much Congress can "delegate" its legislative authority to a federal agency. A conservative grouparguesthat the telecommunications program is funded by an unconstitutional tax because a private administrator overseen by the Federal Communications Commission distributes the funding, collects the fees and estimates how much needs to be raised each quarter. A challenge to Louisiana's congressional map by non-Black voterstests the balancing actstates must strike, complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. The outcome will also determine if the state can keep a map that gave Democrats an advantage in the disputed district, a decision that could make a difference in what could be a close battle for control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Major Supreme Court decisions coming on Trump, porn, religion
