From free speech to executive power, the justices have been ruling on issues that will shape American life for generations.
Every year, legal scholars say the current Supreme Court term is ‘historic.’ This year, they might actually be right.
The Court’s October 2025 term is wrapping up, and when all the opinions have been handed down — expected by late June — it will have touched nearly every corner of American life: free speech online, the limits of presidential power, gun rights in urban areas, and environmental regulations that affect millions of people who will never set foot in a courtroom.
Perhaps the most-watched case of the term involves social media platforms and government speech. The case, Hendricks v. Meta Communications, asks whether the government can pressure private tech companies to remove content it considers harmful without running afoul of the First Amendment. Civil liberties groups say yes, the government has improperly coerced platforms. The Biden-era Justice Department counters that it was simply flagging dangerous misinformation during a public health crisis.
The oral arguments in March were unusually lively. Justice Elena Khoury pressed the government’s attorney hard on where the line is between ‘recommendation’ and ‘coercion.’ Justice Marcus Webb, appointed by the previous administration, seemed deeply skeptical of any government involvement in content decisions. ‘Who decides what’s harmful?’ he asked. ‘That’s a very dangerous power to leave with the executive branch.’
Legal analysts expect a divided opinion — possibly 5-4 — that draws a narrow line without fully resolving the broader tension between government power and platform freedom. ‘Whatever they decide, it’s going to be litigated for years,’ said Professor Angela Sato of Yale Law School.
A second major case involves executive power in a more direct sense. In Administration v. Regulatory Alliance, the Court is weighing whether federal agencies can issue broad regulations without specific congressional authorization. The case has huge implications for everything from environmental rules to workplace safety standards to banking oversight. A ruling that significantly limits agency power could require Congress to legislate in far more detail on dozens of issues it has historically left to experts.
For environmental advocates, that possibility is alarming. ‘Congress doesn’t have the bandwidth to write detailed air quality standards,’ said climate attorney Josephine Reeves. ‘If the Court takes that power away from the EPA, you’re essentially gutting environmental protection.’
Business groups see it differently. ‘Unelected bureaucrats have been making law for decades,’ said chamber of commerce president Robert Knoll. ‘It’s time for elected representatives to actually be accountable for the rules that govern commerce.’
A third case that’s flown somewhat under the radar but may prove equally consequential involves the rights of homeless individuals. The justices are revisiting whether cities can enforce anti-camping ordinances against people with no shelter alternatives. A ruling against cities could constrain local governments trying to clear encampments; a ruling for cities could have serious humanitarian consequences for some of the country’s most vulnerable people.
What makes this term unusual is not just the importance of the individual cases but the sheer breadth of issues under consideration. The nine justices are, in effect, being asked to draw new lines across the entire map of American governance.
The decisions will arrive in a matter of weeks. Whatever they say, the arguments about their meaning — and their legitimacy — will continue long after the opinions are filed.
Leave a comment