By Jordan Rickards | ConservativeOpinion.com | June 27, 2025
In a term-ending flourish both understated and profound, the United States Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions today that mark not a revolution, but a careful rebalancing, a return to constitutional sensibility in an era increasingly defined by ideological fervor.
Each ruling invites reflection and measured celebration. These are not the triumphs of one faction over another, but rather affirmations that certain boundaries — moral, institutional, and jurisdictional — still matter. That they are worth defending not for partisan advantage, but because a republic governed by law cannot long survive without them.
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
The Judiciary’s Proper Scope, Not the Nation’s Steering Wheel
For years, district courts have issued so-called “nationwide injunctions” that reach far beyond the cases before them, freezing federal policy with the stroke of a pen. What began as an extraordinary tool has become routine, and routinely abused.
In Trump v. CASA, the Court declined to rule on the underlying birthright citizenship policy, but it did something more important: it reasserted the limits of judicial authority. A federal judge, no matter how sincere, does not govern the entire country. Relief must be tailored to the case and the parties involved.
This is not about Trump. It is about the separation of powers, a concept increasingly treated as decorative in our legal culture, when it is, in fact, the architecture of our liberty.
For further reading, see our essay Rethinking the Scope of Injunctive Power: A Jurisdictional Proposal and The Myth of Settled Law: Birthright Citizenship and the Collapse of Sovereignty.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Religious Conscience and Parental Authority in a Public System
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court ruled that public schools must accommodate religious objections to classroom content; in this case, LGBTQ-themed books read to elementary students. The parents did not demand censorship. They asked only for notice and the ability to excuse their children, a modest request in any pluralistic society.
The Court’s decision does not endorse any particular moral view. It simply acknowledges that the state cannot compel a child’s moral formation in contradiction to their family’s deeply held religious beliefs, at least not without a compelling reason.
Justice Alito’s majority opinion is measured but firm: if we are to honor religious liberty in more than name, we must sometimes tolerate divergence. Unity imposed through coercion is not civility; it is compliance.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Protecting Children Is Not Censorship
The Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for access to online pornography. Opponents warned of a slippery slope toward censorship. But the slope, if it exists, begins with the belief that there is no moral distinction between adult expression and childhood protection.
The ruling respects longstanding precedent: that the First Amendment, while robust, does not guarantee access to obscenity, especially not for minors. Age restrictions are not new. What’s new is the digital age’s capacity to bypass every traditional safeguard.
This ruling is not puritanical. It is prudent.
See also our article: “Protecting Children is Not Censorship, It’s Civilization.”
FCC v. Consumers’ Research
An Opportunity Deferred in the Fight Against Bureaucratic Drift
This case challenged the FCC’s delegation of regulatory power to a private nonprofit, a troubling example of the “fourth branch” of government operating beyond meaningful oversight. While the Court upheld the delegation this time, the concerns remain pressing.
Administrative agencies routinely blur the lines between lawmaking, enforcement, and adjudication. That consolidation would offend even the most casual reader of The Federalist Papers. If the Court hesitated to act here, one hopes it was only to wait for a case that presents the issue more squarely.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management
Faith in Practice, Not Just in Private
In a quieter but no less significant decision, the Court appears to have sided with a Christian employer who sought to decline certain coverage mandates that conflicted with his religious convictions.
Here again, the Court affirms a principle too often misunderstood: that religious liberty is not confined to pews and prayer closets. It must extend to the daily choices of conscience in commerce and vocation, or it is not liberty at all.
The Court as Constitutional Steward
There was no sweeping manifesto in today’s rulings. No culture-war slogans. No political fireworks. What we saw instead was something rarer: judicial modesty in defense of enduring principles.
The Court did not legislate from the bench, but reminded lower courts to stop doing so. It did not dictate moral consensus, but protected the right to dissent. It did not declare who is right, but clarified what is allowed, and by whom.
That is the Court’s true function. Not to resolve our national debates, but to preserve the conditions under which we may continue having them.
A Model of Leadership in Law
In a time when much of our public discourse rewards outrage and absolutism, this term’s final decisions offer a contrasting example: how to govern with restraint, how to argue with civility, and how to lead by precedent rather than provocation.
These rulings will not please everyone, nor should they. But they ought to remind us that conservatism at its best is not reactive, but rooted; not angry, but anchored.
The Constitution has no favorites. But today, it found its friends.
