The 2025 Supreme Court term ended last week with several landmark decisions that will shape, reshape and continue to affect our politics, our culture, and the health of our society.  

After his re-election in 2024, the Trump team promised to overwhelm the opposition with a torrent of activity they likened to a firehose, and they followed through on that promise. The 2nd Trump Administration issued a record number of Executive Orders in its first few weeks, many of which were aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and followed up in its second year with a barrage of relentless pursuit of immigrants. Some of these efforts have succeeded while others have not. The goal was not just to win, but to exhaust the opposition. It takes time, energy and resources to bring lawsuits to challenge unconstitutional actions, in addition to organizing through ordinary political channels and institutions to fight back. 

Even in losing, the Trump administration has weakened or undermined our democratic culture and institutions. It has dissolved long standing norms, not just violated the law. For example, the administration is attempting to shield federal prosecutors from state bar associations' ethical misconduct rules, even as it has been found to deceive grand juries. It has also targeted many of our most vulnerable people, moving the country toward an ethnic and white nationalist vision, fundamentally shrinking the “we.” 

At the heart of these activities is the simple question: “Who Belongs?” The administration’s answer, too often, is a blood and soil vision of heritage. At the center of this was an executive order Trump issued on January 20, 2025, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order attempted to strip citizenship from roughly one million people, and was immediately challenged in court. On June 30, the Supreme Court rejected this effort in the landmark decision of Trump v. Barbara. Six Supreme Court Justices held that federal law grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States, with a few minor exceptions, such as the children of ambassadors. This decision affirms the principle of birthright citizenship, and a more than 120-year-old precedent, in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). But it is disturbing that at least three Justices would reject this principle, which is at the heart of the core protections of the 14th Amendment.

Affirming the clear text of the Constitution and federal law is something we should expect from the Supreme Court, and the fact that this case even reached the Court is something to be concerned about. But we can all receive some degree of solace from the fact that the Court correctly decided this case, and rejected yet another effort by the Trump administration to deny our diversity and anti-immigrant policy. 

On the same day, however, the Supreme Court decided two other cases that will further erode protections for marginalized populations and weaken our democracy. First, in the case of National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down campaign contribution limits that were upheld as recently as 2001, further widening the sluice gates for the flow of money into political campaigns. This was one of the last remaining guardrails to protect unlimited contributions from flowing into political campaigns.

Secondly, the Supreme Court affirmed that states can ban transgender athletes from competing in various sports activities, and such bans exist in at least 25 states. In many cases, the bans lack nuance or exceptions that would allow transgender children to participate without enjoying a clear advantage in any way. Such categorical bans are not good policy, but it is hard to understand how they are consistent with Title IX.

Also worth mentioning is that the Supreme Court upheld a state’s right to count ballots received after election day. The courts play a critical but often unusual role in a democracy. Courts are not democratic institutions, but their most important role is to protect those institutions and the rights that preserve and guarantee access to them. 

The firehose makes it hard to push back, and courts are not speedy institutions. From the cuts at the EPA, to those of DOGE, to the unlawful tariffs, it can be hard to reverse the damage done, even if the courts serve as a check.

And the Supreme Court’s decision, a few months ago, giving a green light to state legislatures to engage in even more extreme gerrymandering, essentially gutting part of the Voting Rights Act, will make it even harder to work through the usual political channels. 

In this term, the Court stood up for the rule of law, but our democracy is still in peril. The Trump administration's assault on democracy, plurality, diversity, institutions, and the people continues.

And while there are occasional victories amid the substantial losses we've suffered, we must always remember that it’s the people, and not the Court nor Congress, that keeps the American Dream alive.

--