The U.S. Supreme Court in its 2024–25 term continued to robustly protect religious liberty under the First Amendment but retreated from core First Amendment principles in two cases involving the internet.
The court tackled controversies involving national security, religion, online speech, and public school education. It upheld an age verification law protecting children from pornography on the internet in a blow to the adult entertainment industry. For the first time, it applied intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to laws limiting children’s access to pornography online.
The court returned to cases involving hot-button social issues such as gay marriage and tolerance of transgender rights. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court also held that parents must be given notice and the option to opt out of classes where teachers read books celebrating gay marriage, inconsistent with parents’ religious views. Many of the most high-profile cases were decided by 6–3 votes, with the six justices appointed by Republican presidents opposite the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents.
And while the justices declined to hear several provocative free speech cases — prompting sharp dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — they signaled a continuing willingness to protect unpopular or disfavored viewpoints, particularly where government policy or cultural orthodoxy chills the rights of religious traditionalists.
Taken together, the term reflects a court still deeply committed to core First Amendment principles, even as it treads carefully around doctrinal expansion in a fast-changing legal and technological landscape.
- Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton
In a case likely to financially impact the adult entertainment industry, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law that requires people logging on to some pornographic sites to first verify their age.
Like 21 other states, Texas had passed an age-verification law to protect minors from accessing certain pornography websites containing videos and pictures protected for adults but prohibited for children. The law only applied to websites where more than a third of the content would be considered obscene for children. For violations, Texas’ attorney general could seek an injunction and fine websites $10,000 a day, plus $250,000 if any minor accessed the website.
The adult entertainment industry argued that the Texas law violated the First Amendment by burdening the rights of adults to view protected speech far more than necessary to protect children. In two earlier cases, the Supreme Court had applied strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard of review, to federal laws aimed at curbing children’s access to pornography.
But for the first time, the Supreme Court held that intermediate scrutiny applied to these types of age-verification laws. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Thomas explained that intermediate scrutiny balanced the First Amendment rights of adults to view pornography with the state’s interest in protecting children from viewing content that the First Amendment did not protect for them.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that strict scrutiny should apply to the content-based restriction. She suggested that the Texas law might have survived strict scrutiny but insisted that the First Amendment should have required Texas to overcome the most demanding form of review before burdening the rights of adults.
The Fifth Circuit had ruled below that only rational basis review applied to the law, reversing a district court that applied strict scrutiny.
- Mahmoud v. Taylor
The Supreme Court held that the public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, likely violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by requiring elementary students to read books on gender and sexuality, affirming gay marriage, in conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs — without providing parents with notice of the lessons or an option to opt out their children from reading those books.
The court remanded the case for the lower courts to issue a preliminary injunction against the policy.
Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Alito wrote that the policy substantially interfered with the right of parents “to direct the religious upbringing of their children” and burdened their right to freely exercise their religion. The school board had argued that the books taught children about diversity and respect, as well as contributing to the English curriculum. But the court wrote that the books were “clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”
Justice Alito wrote that the policy likely would not survive strict scrutiny because the board could not show that its policy was narrowly tailored to advance its compelling state interest. The board could have provided parents with notice and an opt out, as it previously did.
“It must be emphasized that what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement,” Justice Alito wrote.
Montgomery schools originally notified parents about lessons featuring in the LGBTQ+ books and allowed their children to opt out of the instruction. But in 2023, the school board eliminated both the notice and opt-out policy, citing concerns about absenteeism, administrative feasibility, and classroom disruption.
Parents sued, arguing the policy burdens their free exercise rights by forcing their children to receive instruction contrary to their religious convictions. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding no sufficient burden on religious exercise, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Justice Thomas concurred and argued that the school’s policy of promoting equity and inclusion “do not amount to interests of the highest order.” He also wrote that “[w]hat is now labeled ‘sex education’ is a 20th-century innovation” without a strong history or tradition. “Nothing suggests that the countless generations who did not receive such education failed to meet the duties of citizenship.”
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that exposing children at school to ideas contrary to their parents’ religious beliefs does not violate the free exercise clause. “The Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children,” she wrote.
- TikTok Inc. v. Garland
In a unanimous, unsigned decision issued on an accelerated timetable, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits TikTok from operating in the United States unless its China-based parent divested ownership of the company.
The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act targets TikTok, a widely used social media platform owned by China-based ByteDance. Because Chinese law required ByteDance to share users’ data with Chinese intelligence agencies, the government justified the law on national security grounds to safeguard Americans’ personal data from a foreign adversary.
The Supreme Court held that the law was content-neutral because it regulates ownership rather than speech. It applied intermediate scrutiny and concluded that the law advances important national security interests without unnecessarily burdening speech.
Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred to express concern about the court’s rushed review of the case, decided two weeks after briefing. He wrote that he had “serious reservations” about whether the law was, in fact, content-neutral, and cautioned against allowing government regulation of platforms under the guise of preventing “covert content manipulation.”
The Supreme Court decided the case on a rush basis before the law went into effect in January. But the law still has not gone into effect because President Trump has delayed its implementation until at least September.
- Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the First Amendment by denying Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption for religious organizations, based on the finding that it was not “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
Catholic Charities Bureau, controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, provides charitable services without proselytizing or limiting assistance to Catholics and employs staff regardless of religious affiliation.
Wisconsin law exempts nonprofits from unemployment taxes only if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The state supreme court interpreted this to require overt religious outreach or worship. Because Catholic Charities Bureau did not engage in proselytization or limit its services to Catholics, it did not qualify for the exemption.
Writing for the court, Justice Sotomayor found that interpretation discriminatory, favoring religions that proselytize over those that do not, and violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the state’s interests did not survive strict scrutiny, as the policy was underinclusive and not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
Justice Thomas concurred, emphasizing the importance of church autonomy and criticizing the state’s disregard for the organization’s religious structure. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred, noting that the federal statute that served as the basis for Wisconsin’s law focuses on the nature of the organization’s work, not its religious motivation.
- Libby v. Fecteau
The court granted an emergency application for an injunction pending appeal, restoring Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby’s voting rights after she was censured and barred from voting by the Maine House of Representatives. The House punished Rep. Libby for a social media post opposing the state’s policy allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports.
Justice Jackson dissented, warning that the court is increasingly “watering down” its emergency application standards and rushing to grant emergency relief before lower courts can consider the merits of a case.
Dissents from Denial of Certiorari
In a series of dissents from denial of certiorari, Justices Thomas and Alito expressed concern about lower court rulings that, in their view, erode First Amendment protections — especially for controversial or disfavored viewpoints.
In Speech First Inc. v. Whitten, Justice Thomas argued that university “bias response teams,” even without disciplinary authority, create a chilling effect through surveillance and implied threats. He urged the court to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
In Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Justices Thomas and Alito called on the court to overrule Hill v. Colorado, arguing that buffer zones around abortion clinics impose content-based restrictions on core political speech in public forums.
Finally, in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, both justices objected to the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case about a student disciplined for wearing a “There Are Only Two Genders” shirt. They warned that schools increasingly suppress constitutionally protected expression that conflicts with prevailing ideological norms.
Together, these dissents reflect a broader judicial philosophy skeptical of government regulation that stifles dissent, particularly in traditional public discourse arenas like universities, sidewalks, and schools.