The U.S. Supreme court term concluded with unexpected swiftness and significant announcements, capping off a busy year for the nation’s highest court. Chief justice John Roberts surprised many observers on Thursday by stating the court would deliver all remaining opinions the very next day, Friday, June 27, 2025. This meant six high-profile cases would be resolved in a single, climactic final session.
Anticipation filled the air on Friday morning. Speculation had circulated about potential retirements, particularly concerning Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, considered by some to be the most likely to step down. Court watchers and journalists looked for potential clues, specifically hoping to spot their spouses, Virginia Thomas and Martha-Ann Alito, in the courtroom’s VIP section. This kind of family presence had signaled Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement in 2018. However, the VIP box remained empty of any justice’s spouse today, effectively cooling the retirement rumors for the summer. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s parents were present, but their attendance is frequent, especially when their son is announcing an opinion.
Honoring Longtime Court Service
While no justices announced their departures, the court did take time to recognize two staff members concluding decades of dedicated service. Seated in the VIP chairs alongside regular staff members were two individuals who recently retired after long careers at the court. Chief Justice Roberts traditionally honors such retirees at the close of the term.
One recognized retiree was Deputy Clerk Jeffrey Atkins, who retired in November 2024 after 33 years serving in the clerk’s office. The other was Chief of Police Paul Coleman, who concluded 29 years as a court police officer in January 2025. Chief Coleman’s office was conveniently located near the press room, making him a familiar and friendly face to reporters in the hallway. He also supervised courtroom security for a period, spending many hours observing the court’s proceedings from within the historic room.
A Packed Courtroom Awaits
The public gallery was notably full, presumably with individuals who had waited outside for seats, as it appeared the court did not offer its usual online ticket system for these non-argument opinion days.
The bar section, often sparsely populated on opinion days, was nearly half-full, indicating the significance of the day’s docket. The Solicitor General’s office had a strong contingent present, led by Principal Deputy SG Hashim Mooppan and joined by Principal Deputy SG Sarah Harris, Deputy Solicitors General Malcolm Stewart and Eric Feigin, and other assistants. Notably absent was Solicitor General D. John Sauer, despite the day proving to be quite significant for his office’s cases.
The justices took the bench just after 10 a.m., with Justice Neil Gorsuch absent. Chief Justice Roberts announced the first opinion would be delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Trump v. CASA. This case, stemming from the emergency docket, concerned President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and the universal injunctions that had blocked its implementation. The assignment was notable, as some observers had expected Chief Justice Roberts himself might take this case.
Barrett made it clear from the outset that the court’s 6-3 ruling focused strictly on the legality of the universal injunctions, not on the underlying merits of the executive order itself. She spoke for approximately 10 minutes, discussing the “flexible” but not “freewheeling” nature of federal courts’ equitable authority. Her summary touched upon historical legal concepts, referencing England’s High Court of Chancery and bills of peace, and citing the 1999 decision in Grupo Mexicano, or simply “Grupo.”
Dramatic Dissents Highlight Divisions
Following Justice Barrett’s announcement of the 6-3 majority lineup that curtailed universal injunctions, Justice Sonia Sotomayor immediately began reading from her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her oral dissent was particularly sharp.
Early in her remarks, Justice Sotomayor referred to the majority decision as “shameful.” While her written dissent used the word “shamefully,” the direct use of “shameful” from the bench caused both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to turn their heads towards her.
Justice Sotomayor discussed birthright citizenship more extensively than the majority opinion, arguing that the decision limiting universal injunctions would serve as an “open invitation” for the executive branch to disregard the Constitution. She also dramatically declared, “The other shoe has dropped on presidential immunity,” a line that seemingly did not appear in her final written dissent.
Strong Language from the Bench
Other vivid phrases from her oral dissent mirrored those in her written opinion. She asserted that the majority had “kneecapped the judiciary’s authority to stop the executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies” by stripping courts of equitable power.
However, she noted one positive aspect, stating that “in the rubble of its assault on equity jurisdiction,” the majority had preserved Rule 23(b)(2) class actions for injunctive relief, calling it “one important tool to provide broad relief to individuals subject to lawless government conduct.” After speaking for 19 minutes, she concluded her dissent at 10:30 a.m.
The chief justice quickly moved on to the second case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a concise summary of the 6-3 ruling. The court held that the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are considered “inferior officers” and that their appointment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is consistent with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Justice Kavanaugh’s parents listened attentively during his summary, while NPR’s Nina Totenberg exited the press section, likely prioritizing the significant CASA ruling.
Justice Elena Kagan was next, announcing the opinion in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research. The 6-3 majority rejected arguments challenging the funding mechanism of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which subsidizes telecommunications services for low-income customers, rural hospitals, schools, and libraries.
Justice Kagan stated the challengers’ arguments that the USF funding violates the non-delegation doctrine were “incorrect.” She pointedly added that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which had previously deemed the funding scheme an “unconstitutional tax,” was “wrong.” Principal Deputy SG Sarah Harris, who presented arguments for the FCC, appeared pleased with the court’s affirmation of the program.
Deep Divisions on Social Issues
Justice Samuel Alito then announced one of the term’s most anticipated rulings, Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case involved a dispute over LGBTQ+ storybooks used in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school district and the rights of religious parents to opt their children out of related lessons. The school district initially allowed opt-outs but later reversed its policy, citing administrative burdens.
Justice Alito’s summary focused on the “very young children” for whom five specific books were intended. He highlighted the school district’s guidance to teachers, which he described as intended to “disrupt the children’s thinking about sexuality and gender.” At oral argument, Alito had a notable exchange with Justice Sotomayor about one of the books, Uncle Bobby’s Marriage. On the bench today, he focused on another title, Born Ready, which features a character named Penelope who identifies as a boy despite being initially treated as a girl.
Justice Alito stated that this discussion about gender was something to which “the parents and many Americans object.” His oral summary was longer than usual, containing several rebuttals to “the dissent,” foreshadowing another oral dissent.
He was correct. Justice Sotomayor delivered her second oral dissent of the day, again joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She argued the majority opinion would impact “the very essence of public education.” For her discussion, she focused on Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, interpreting the character Chloe’s reaction to her uncle’s upcoming marriage to another man. An appendix to her written dissent reportedly reprinted the entire book.
Justice Sotomayor also voiced concerns that upholding broad parental rights to veto curriculum materials could quickly extend beyond LGBTQ+ topics to include challenges to books on evolution, interfaith marriage, and history. She concluded her dissent by reiterating her alignment with Justices Kagan and Jackson.
Clearing the Docket
By this point, the session was well past 11 a.m., with only two cases remaining. The pace quickened as the court worked to complete its term.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. As widely expected based on earlier opinion assignments, the court ruled 6-3 on the Texas law requiring age verification for adult-content websites. The court found the law triggers First Amendment scrutiny but survives “intermediate scrutiny,” a test more rigorous than applied by the appeals court but less stringent than challengers sought. The court determined the law only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults. Justice Thomas’s summary was concise, including his characteristic closing phrase, “in an opinion filed with the clerk today, we affirm” the lower court’s decision.
Chief Justice Roberts then addressed Louisiana v. Callais, a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map. This case was not decided but instead restored to the argument calendar for the next term. The court indicated further orders would specify the questions the parties should address. Justice Thomas dissented from this decision, though he did not announce it from the bench.
With the final cases resolved, Chief Justice Roberts began the traditional closing remarks. He confirmed that the court “has acted upon all cases submitted to the court for decision this term.” He provided one piece of administrative news: order lists related to items discussed in yesterday’s conference would be released the following Monday and Thursday mornings at 9:30 a.m. The court had held its regular weekly conference the previous day, and it appeared to have combined it with the traditional term-end “clean-up” conference. The delay in releasing those administrative orders until the following week provided some relief on an already dense opinion day.
Chief Justice Roberts proceeded to thank court employees, the Supreme Court bar, and specifically acknowledged the two retirees mentioned earlier, Deputy Clerk Jeffrey Atkins and Chief of Police Paul Coleman. Finally, he turned to Marshal Gail Curley, who announced the court was “adjourned until Monday, Oct. 6, at 10 o’clock.” She then gaveled the session to a close, and the justices retired behind the red velvet curtain, marking the official end of the Supreme Court’s term.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the key rulings announced on the Supreme Court’s final day?
The final opinion day of the Supreme Court term, June 27, 2025, saw the resolution of six significant cases. Key rulings included Trump v. CASA, limiting universal injunctions; Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, concerning the Appointments Clause; FCC v. Consumers’ Research, upholding the Universal Service Fund’s funding mechanism; Mahmoud v. Taylor, regarding LGBTQ+ books and parental opt-out rights in schools; and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, upholding a Texas age verification law under intermediate scrutiny. One case, Louisiana v. Callais, was restored to the argument calendar for the next term instead of being decided.
Why was there speculation about Justice retirements, and what happened?
Leading up to the final day, there was speculation that Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito might announce their retirement. This anticipation was partly based on observers looking for family members, specifically their spouses Virginia Thomas and Martha-Ann Alito, to be present in the courtroom VIP box. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s wife had been present on the day of his 2018 retirement announcement, serving as a signal. However, no spouses of justices appeared in the VIP box on the final day of this term, which generally indicated that no retirement announcements were planned for that summer.
What notable dissents occurred on the last day of the term?
The final day featured particularly strong oral dissents from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In Trump v. CASA, Justice Sotomayor referred to the majority decision limiting universal injunctions as “shameful” and an “open invitation” for the executive branch to bypass the Constitution, stating it “kneecaps the judiciary’s authority.” In Mahmoud v. Taylor, concerning school books and parental rights, she argued the ruling impacted “the very essence of public education” and expressed concern that parental veto rights could expand to other curriculum topics like evolution or history.
