SCOTUS Gives Conservatives Three Key Victories in Landmark Decisions

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered three major rulings on Friday, all of which are being lauded as significant wins for conservatives.

In a 6–3 ruling on Trump v Casa, the Court held that lower federal courts lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, judges may only enjoin parties before them. While the decision did not address the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order ending automatic birthright citizenship, it clears the legal pathway for enforcement in jurisdictions not specifically party to the case.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in writing the majority opinion, stated that federal courts must “resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” Liberal justices dissented, warning the ruling could undermine court oversight and threaten constitutional protections. The Court left the enforcement of Trump’s order on hold for 30 days while lower courts assess narrower relief options.

In speaking about the decision Friday, President Trump called it a “massive victory…in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the Executive branch.” The President’s full remarks are available HERE and embedded below. (h/t to WAAY-TV Channel 31 in Huntsville)

In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld Texas’s requirement that pornographic websites verify user age via credit cards or government IDs. In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled that this measure is a “reasonable, incidental” restriction meant to keep minors from explicit content. The ruling follows a wave of similar state laws aimed at protecting children online.

Critics of the Texas law, while acknowledging that online child safety is a matter of importance, argued that the Texas law poses significant privacy concerns and increases the risk of identity theft and other security issues.

In 2024, the Alabama Legislature passed HB164, which requires adult websites to verify that users are at least 18 and to display warnings about potential harms—a mandate that took effect on October 1, 2024 . This law has since prompted some adult sites to block Alabama users entirely rather than comply.

A related proposal in the 2025 session to require app-store age authentication—HB187—failed to advance and was not enacted during this session.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, also decided 6–3, the Court held parents have a First Amendment right to withdraw their children from school lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized religious freedoms and parental control over children’s guidance. The decision mandates schools must notify parents and allow opt-outs during ongoing litigation.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissented, warning the ruling could trigger administrative chaos and increase censorship of public school curricula.

In summary, the limitations imposed by Trump v Casa now allow other actions by the administration an easier path forward. Free Speech Coalition v Paxton opens the door for other States to pursue similar measures to protect minors for online harm, albeit with an increased risk of breaches of personal privacy and security. Mahmoud v Taylor represents a significant step forward in strengthening parental rights and religious liberty, but will likely intensify local battles—such as Alabama is currently experiencing—over what is and what is not appropriate for children.

These decisions show a decisive shift in judicial philosophy—favoring narrower judicial restraints, bolstered executive power, and expanded parental rights. As such, they will shape critical policy decisions at all levels in the coming months and years.