Epochal questions before US top court

The most influential cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, which began on October 6, reflect the cultural and partisan clashes of American politics.

- MORGAN MARIETTA

The major cases in October and November address the role of race in elections, conversion therapy and the Trump tariffs. Later cases include campaign finance and transgender sports. This year’s controversies focus on three dominant themes. One is the continuing constitutional revolution in how the justices read basic law. The court has shifted from a living reading of the Constitution, which says the Constitution should adapt to the American people's evolving values and the needs of contemporary society, to an original reading, which aims to enforce the constitutional principles understood by the Americans who ratified them.

Another clear theme is the deep cultural division among Americans. The core disputes at the court this year reflect controversial factual questions about gender and race: How pervasive and influential is racism in the current day? Are gender transitions a recognized fact, which means that they must be accepted in sports competitions, or can a state assert that trans athletes are not women?

A final theme is the struggle for partisan advantage embedded in several cases.

Until just a few years ago, the majority ofjustices would have agreed that the proper way to read the Constitution was as an evolving document, an approach usually described as living constitutionalism.

The new majority reads the Constitution as an expression of enduring principles, which maintain their historical meaning unless the American people collectively decide to amend the document, an approach known as originalism.

Since 2022, this revolutionary shift has led to dramatic changes in the law on abortion, religion, guns, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies to regulate in areas such as the environment, public health or student debt.

This year, the constitutional revolution ~ “a historic constitutional course correction” as legal scholars Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn and Yaniv Roznai put it — turns to transgender politics.