Scholarlink

<p>The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024–2025 Term was remarkable. It was an unusual “Tale of Two Terms.” The regular Term, starting in October 2024, proceeded as expected, with extensive briefing, oral arguments, and full opinions. For mental health professionals, several cases stood out: the Court upheld state laws restricting gender-transition care for minors, recognized parents’ rights to exclude their children from certain LGBTQ+ classroom materials, and ruled on cases involving disabilities, the death penalty, gun rights, and pornography. The American Psychological Association (APA) filed amicus briefs in the gender-transition and LGBTQ+ instruction cases. Meanwhile, a Second (“Shadow”) Term was dominated by a flood of emergency requests, many of them tied to Trump administration policies. These disputes, including issues related to federal grants, immigration, and executive power, were often decided without complete briefing or oral arguments. The Court generally did not provide full written opinions, leaving some ambiguities about the decisions. This article analyzes both Terms, examines public trust in the Court, and previews a consequential year ahead, with cases involving conversion therapy, transgender athletes, and pregnancy center regulations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Essence and Essential Values of Our Democracy: An Extraordinary Term for the Supreme Court

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月1日

查看全文
  • Steven R. Smith

摘要

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024–2025 Term was remarkable. It was an unusual “Tale of Two Terms.” The regular Term, starting in October 2024, proceeded as expected, with extensive briefing, oral arguments, and full opinions. For mental health professionals, several cases stood out: the Court upheld state laws restricting gender-transition care for minors, recognized parents’ rights to exclude their children from certain LGBTQ+ classroom materials, and ruled on cases involving disabilities, the death penalty, gun rights, and pornography. The American Psychological Association (APA) filed amicus briefs in the gender-transition and LGBTQ+ instruction cases. Meanwhile, a Second (“Shadow”) Term was dominated by a flood of emergency requests, many of them tied to Trump administration policies. These disputes, including issues related to federal grants, immigration, and executive power, were often decided without complete briefing or oral arguments. The Court generally did not provide full written opinions, leaving some ambiguities about the decisions. This article analyzes both Terms, examines public trust in the Court, and previews a consequential year ahead, with cases involving conversion therapy, transgender athletes, and pregnancy center regulations.