The Supreme Court's ruling declared that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, marking a significant shift in the landscape of higher education policy. In conjunction with its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Court effectively overruled previous landmark decisions, such as Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which had permitted certain affirmative action practices as long as race was considered in a limited capacity.

At the heart of the lawsuit was the claim that Harvard University imposed a soft quota that resulted in "racial balancing," which the plaintiffs argued unfairly limited the admission of Asian-American applicants. They noted a troubling pattern: despite a substantial increase in the number of Asian-American applicants and a growing population, the percentage of admitted Asian students remained relatively constant over the years. This led the plaintiffs to assert that Harvard's admissions practices were discriminatory.

Responses to the ruling reflected a deep division in public opinion. Former President Donald Trump lauded the decision, stating, "This is a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded. This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for.” His remarks underscored a belief that merit-based evaluations should take precedence over race-based considerations.

Former Vice President Mike Pence echoed this sentiment, declaring, "There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism.” Pence’s comments highlighted the ruling as a necessary step toward ensuring equality in educational opportunities.

Florida Governor and 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis emphasized the need for merit-based admissions, stating, "College admissions should be based on merit and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court has correctly upheld the Constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities.” His remarks reflected a broader Republican push for policies that prioritize individual qualifications over demographic factors.

2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy took to social media to assert that "affirmative action is a badly failed experiment: time to put a nail in the coffin & restore colorblind meritocracy.” His stance resonated with many who believe that race-based affirmative action has outlived its effectiveness and has instead created new forms of inequality.

The ruling was further supported by Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Tim Scott, and Marsha Blackburn, each expressing their approval of the decision. Their comments highlighted a unified Republican front in favor of the Supreme Court’s stance against race-based considerations in college admissions.

Overall, this ruling not only impacts admissions policies at elite institutions but also signals a potential shift in how educational equality is conceptualized in America. The debate surrounding affirmative action is likely to continue, influencing both political discourse and the future of higher education in the United States.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is a significant case before the United States Supreme Court that addresses the legality of local government ordinances imposing civil and criminal penalties for camping on public land, particularly as it pertains to homeless individuals. The case arose from the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, where local authorities enacted ordinances aimed at managing the presence of homeless people in public spaces. The core issue was whether these ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

During oral arguments on April 22, 2024, attorney Theane Evangelis, representing Grants Pass through the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, articulated the city's position. He argued that homeless individuals should be required to mount a necessity defense in court—essentially justifying their need to camp in public spaces—rather than contesting the enforcement of anti-camping laws based on Eighth Amendment claims. This perspective raised significant concerns about the treatment of homeless individuals and the broader implications of criminalizing their circumstances.

Justice Elena Kagan, during the proceedings, challenged Evangelis's argument by highlighting empirical evidence indicating that the enforcement of these ordinances disproportionately affected homeless individuals. Kagan pointed out that the laws appeared to target those without shelter rather than being applied uniformly to all individuals who might use public land for various reasons, such as picnicking or recreation. This observation suggested a troubling potential for the criminalization of homelessness itself, raising ethical questions about the fairness and humanity of such legal measures.

The Court's ruling in this case has implications not only for the rights of homeless individuals but also for how local governments can regulate public land use in a way that respects constitutional protections. By addressing the tension between public order and the rights of vulnerable populations, the case underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of justice and compassion in the enforcement of local laws. As the Court considers these issues, the outcomes could influence future legislation and policies related to homelessness across the country, shaping the national conversation around the rights of the unhoused and the responsibilities of local governments.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the intersection of public accommodation laws, free speech, and the free exercise of religion. At the heart of the case was Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, owned by Jack Phillips, who refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the bakery's actions under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and determined that Phillips had discriminated against the couple, issuing orders for compliance.

After a series of appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision, prompting Phillips to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court found that the Commission had not demonstrated religious neutrality in its evaluation of Phillips's case, thus violating his rights to free exercise of religion. However, the Court did not make a broader ruling on the general balance between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom, focusing instead on the specific circumstances of the Commission's actions.

The case was supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal advocacy group that represented Masterpiece. ADF emphasized the need for tolerance and respect for differing opinions, arguing that the Commission's treatment of Phillips was unjust. Notably, ADF has connections to influential political figures, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with former Vice President Mike Pence and others.

In addition to its involvement in this case, ADF has played a role in shaping significant legislation, including writing the model for Mississippi's anti-abortion law, which contributed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This decision ultimately overturned the long-standing precedent of Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion in the United States since 1973. The implications of Masterpiece Cakeshop continue to resonate in discussions about the balance between individual rights and anti-discrimination protections, reflecting ongoing societal debates around these critical issues.

An increasing number of states have enacted laws requiring websites that host content considered “harmful to minors” to verify users' ages before granting access. In 2023, Texas joined this trend by passing HB 1181 (“the Act”). According to the Act, websites with one-third or more of their content classified as “harmful to minors” must verify the age of all users. The term “sexual material harmful to minors” is vaguely defined, encompassing a wide range of content, including sex education videos and R-rated films.

Additionally, the Act mandates that affected websites display government-issued “sexual materials health warnings,” which include statements claiming that “[p]ornography is potentially biologically addictive” and can harm brain development. This age verification requirement limits access for adults, as they must disclose their identities to bypass the age gate. It also compromises anonymity and could prevent individuals without government ID or those misidentified by the verification technology from accessing these websites altogether.