President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, which identifies circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not recognized as a citizen, specifically targeting children born to mothers unlawfully or temporarily present and fathers who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Several plaintiffs, including individuals, organizations, and States, filed suits challenging the Order as violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and federal law. District Courts entered universal preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the Order against anyone, not just the plaintiffs, which the Government appealed. The Government sought partial stays of these injunctions, arguing that the District Courts lacked equitable authority to issue universal injunctions and that relief should be limited to the parties before the courts. The Courts of Appeals denied the Government’s stay requests, and the Supreme Court granted the Government’s applications for partial stays to the extent that the injunctions were broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. The Court did not address the merits of the constitutional challenge to the Order.

Montgomery County, Maryland, a highly diverse and populous county, incorporated several LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into its public elementary school curriculum for kindergarten through fifth grade. The Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving these books and provided notice of when the books would be taught. These storybooks, which include narratives depicting same-sex weddings, transgender children, and LGBTQ+ themes, were integrated as instructional materials to promote inclusivity and diversity within the English Language Arts curriculum. Shortly after the introduction of these books, the Board rescinded the parental opt-out policy, citing disruptions caused by the growing number of opt-out requests and concerns about social stigma for students who opted out. In response, a group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds filed suit, claiming that the Board’s refusal to allow opt-outs infringed upon their right to free exercise of religion by forcing their children to be exposed to ideas and values conflicting with their religious beliefs. The District Court and the Fourth Circuit denied relief, finding insufficient evidence that the instruction coerced children to act contrary to their faith. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve these issues.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) awarded two major contracts for restoration projects in Philadelphia, which were federally funded and subject to regulations requiring a portion of the work to be subcontracted to disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs). Petitioners Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co. falsely represented that they would use a prequalified disadvantaged business for paint supplies, as mandated by federal regulations and PennDOT’s contract requirements. In reality, Kousisis arranged for the disadvantaged business, Markias, Inc., to act only as a pass-through entity rather than performing any actual work or supplying materials, funneling payments and invoices without providing any materials itself. This deception violated the requirement that disadvantaged businesses perform a commercially useful function. Although the actual painting work was completed to PennDOT’s satisfaction, and Alpha made over $20 million in profit, the government charged Kousisis and Alpha with wire fraud based on their fraudulent inducement of PennDOT to enter the contracts under false pretenses. The lower courts convicted them, rejecting the argument that no economic loss occurred since PennDOT received the expected services.