Blog

Woodhull Watchlist: Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

October 23, 2025


Last Updated: October 23, 2025

On Monday, October 6, 2025, the US Supreme Court began hearing cases scheduled for the 2025-2026 term. At Woodhull, we are closely watching several cases that impact free speech, LGBTQIA+ rights, and gender justice. These cases are part of what is known as the “merits docket”, which means each case includes a deliberative process involving:

  • Oral arguments before the Justices
  • Full briefing from parties involved in the case
  • Possible “friends of the court” briefings for parties not involved in the case, but who wish to provide additional information for the Court to consider
  • Signed opinions by the Court, including transparency on how each Justice voted

SCOTUS Merits Docket

Chiles v. Salazar
    • Issues:
      • Free Speech, LGBTQIA+ Rights
    • Question Presented:
      • Does a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
    • Case Background:
      • Kaley Chiles, an Evangelical Christian counselor practicing in Colorado Springs, Colorado, brought the case to challenge Colorado’s 2019 law, which bans “conversion therapy” for minors. Many medical providers, including mental healthcare practitioners, have discredited “conversion therapy” for both its harms and false claims regarding its practices meant to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. LGBTQIA+ people and LGBTQ+ rights organizations have advocated against “conversion therapy,” leading several states to pass laws protecting youth from this dangerous practice.
      • The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a far-right Christian legal organization, is representing Chiles in the case. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group. This case furthers ADF’s long history of using the courts to erode LGBTQIA+ rights and reproductive justice. The organization spearheaded Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and 303 Creative v. Elenis, which enabled businesses to seek free-speech exemptions from nondiscrimination laws.
    • Oral Arguments:
      • Held October 7, 2025
    • Updates on Proceedings and Filings:

Our Position: 

  • LGBTQIA+ people are entitled to live as their whole selves and be free from treatment that seeks to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. “Conversion Therapy” is a cruel and dangerous punishment and a violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which protects us from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
  • Woodhull urges the Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiffs in this case and maintain states’ ability to protect the rights, health, and well-being of LGBTQIA+ youth and their families.

Analysis of Oral Arguments:

      • During oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court on October 7, 2025, the majority of Justices seemed likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff and strike down Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban. Such a decision could invalidate laws protecting LGBTQ+ youth from “conversion therapy” in two dozen other states. Woodhull awaits the Justices’ final decision on the case, which is expected at the end of the current term.

Our Statement on Oral Arguments:

  • “LGBTQ youth are under relentless attack in the US, and the Supreme Court is ensuring this vulnerable community has fewer and fewer legal protections. Now the conservatives on the Court are poised to declare that licensed mental health professionals are permitted to commit medical malpractice and cruel abuse against children and their parents. While the institutions meant to uphold equal protections before the law may be failing us, Woodhull remains committed as ever to defend the rights and safety of the LGBTQ community.” 

– Ricci Levy, Woodhull President and CEO

Little v. Hecox
  • Issues:
    • Trans Rights, Gender Justice
  • Question Presented:
    • Does the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prohibit states from designating girls’ and women’s school sports teams based on students’ biological sex determined at birth?
    • In other words, are transgender girls’ and women’s constitutional rights and protections violated when state laws ban them from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity?
  • Case Background:
    • In 2020, Idaho enacted a law banning transgender girls and women from participating on female sports teams in public schools (elementary through college). The law allows anyone to challenge an athlete’s participation on a female-designated team. This requires the athlete being challenged to undergo an invasive medical process that may include examination of their reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or testosterone levels. Both transgender and cisgender athletes may be forced to undergo this invasive medical process.
    • Boise State University student, Lindsay Hecox, who is a transgender woman and wished to join the school’s women’s cross-country team, challenged the law along with a cisgender high school athlete who filed as Jane Doe. In the suit, they argue that the Idaho ban violates their constitutional rights, including the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Clause guarantees everyone within the United States (citizen or not) equal protection before the law. As such, the plaintiffs are challenging the ban on the grounds that it unconstitutionally discriminates against transgender student athletes and targets both transgender and cisgender student athletes by exposing them to intrusive sex verification processes.
    • A district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. The case has since gone through several rounds of appeals. The Supreme Court will be reviewing lower court decisions in the case. It may make a ruling that determines the level of protection transgender people receive under the Equal Protection Clause.
  • Oral Arguments:
    • TBD
  • Updates on Proceedings and Filings:

Our Position:

    • Laws banning transgender students from participating in school sports that align with their gender identity are cruel and interfere with transgender students’ access to safe and nondiscriminatory educational settings.
    • Woodhull urges the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case to ensure transgender students have their constitutional rights protected under the Equal Protection Clause.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

  • Issues:
    • Trans Rights, Gender Justice
  • Questions Presented:
    • Does Title IX or the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prohibit states from designating girls’ school sports teams based on students’ biological sex as determined at birth?
    • In other words, are transgender girls’ constitutional and Title IX rights and protections violated when state laws ban them from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity?
  • Case Background:
    • The plaintiff in the case, B.P.J., is a transgender girl who wanted to participate in her school’s girls’ track team. Three years ago, when B.J.P. was in middle school, she was initially prevented from running on the track team because of West Virginia’s law prohibiting transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports in middle school, high school, and college. B.P.J. then sued in federal court, arguing that the ban on transgender students’ participation in school sport teams aligned with their gender identity violates her and students like her constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX protections. The Equal Protection Clause guarantees everyone within the United States (citizen or not) equal protection before the law; Title IX is the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. As such, B.J.P. is challenging the ban on grounds that it unconstitutionally targets transgender student athletes and violates Title XI protections against sex-based discrimination.
    • A lower federal court issued an injunction in the case, which has allowed B.J.P. to participate in her school’s cross-country and track and field girls’ teams. The Supreme Court will review lower court decisions in the case and may issue a ruling that determines the level of protection transgender people receive under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
  • Oral Arguments:
    • TBD
  • Updates on Proceedings and Filings:

Our Position:

    • Laws banning transgender students from participating in school sports that align with their gender identity are cruel and interfere with transgender students’ access to safe and nondiscriminatory educational settings.
    • Woodhull urges the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case to ensure transgender students are rightly protected against sex discrimination in schools and have their constitutional rights protected under the Equal Protection Clause.

SCOTUS Shadow Docket

In addition to the merits docket, Woodhull monitors the emergency docket, also known as the “shadow docket”. Throughout President Trump’s first and second terms, his administration has increasingly utilized the shadow docket to make extremely consequential decisions via this opaque and expedited system. In such cases, there are no oral arguments, and Justices are not required to issue opinions that explain their reasoning for a ruling and provide transparency on how each Justice voted. The administration’s reliance on “shadow docket” cases and the willingness of the Supreme Court to issue high-stakes decisions via this system are deeply disturbing and set a dangerous precedent.

We are currently tracking Trump v. Orr, which will determine whether the Trump administration’s discriminatory ban on gender-neutral markers on passports can stand.

Update 11/7/2025: SCOTUS rules Trump administration can implement discriminatory anti-transgender, anti-nonbinary passport policy 

  • On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court’s nine Republican appointees ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s ban on gender neutral markers on passports. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent (opposition of the ruling) on behalf of the three Democratic appointees that the order is, “…part of a broader pattern of this Court using its emergency docket to cavalierly pick the winners and losers in cases that are still pending in the lower courts.“
  • Learn more about the case and the SCOTUS ruling from journalist and trans rights advocate, Erin Reed, here. 

To stay up to date on all our work to defend and protect sexual freedom as a fundamental human right, follow us on social media:

Black and white photo of the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC

A black and white photo of the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. (Photo by Tim Mossholder via Unsplash)

Back To Top
Search