The Supreme Court begins its 2025-2026 term on Monday, October 6, 2025. Their docket is packed with key cases that could have a major impact on the culture, election integrity, and presidential authority.

Pray for your fellow intercessor.

View Comments (0)

Just days before the new session begins, the Supreme Court has agreed – so far – to hear 34 cases. But in all likelihood, the Court will decide to hear additional cases in the months ahead. Last term, the Court heard a total of 65 cases.

The 2025-2026 term also marks the 20^th year of the Supreme Court being led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed 78-22 by the U.S. Senate on September 29, 2005, as Chief Justice.

Here are five top cases the Supreme Court will be hearing in the new term.

LGBTQ+

Case #1: Chiles v. Salazar

Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist working in Colorado, brought suit against Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy.” She argues that the ban restricts her free speech and does not allow her clients to get the help they desire.

Many of her clients struggling with same-sex attraction and gender confusion have been referred to her by churches. But because of the ban, she is not allowed to counsel clients from a biblical worldview or discuss the transformative nature of Christ to live a life in obedience to God’s perfect design for sexuality. A licensed therapist is only allowed to affirm what the client is feeling about their sexuality and support current medical “affirming” care.

Colorado argues that counseling is not free speech but medical treatment and is therefore not in violation of the First Amendment. Every major medical and psychiatric organization opposes “conversion therapy,” calling it “harmful and potentially deadly”. Twenty states have banned conversion therapy.

Oral arguments will be held on Tuesday, October 7, 2025. If the Court finds in favor of Kaley Chiles, conversion therapy bans will no longer be legal.

For more information on this case, go here.

Cases # 2 and #3: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J

These two cases both deal with the constitutionality of state laws banning biological males from playing on women’s sports teams.

Lindsay Hecox is a male student at Boise State University who “identifies” as female. He wanted to join the women’s track and cross-country team, but Idaho passed a ban on transgender athletes playing in female sports. The lower courts agreed with Linday’s argument that banning him from playing on women’s teams is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Idaho petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold its ban.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological male identifying as female, lives in West Virginia. She too wants to join the girls’ cross country and track teams at her high school. West Virginia also has a ban on boys playing in girls’ sports. The lower courts had ruled that “Becky’s” exclusion violated Title IX. West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court.

Neither case has been scheduled yet for the 2025-2026 term. If the Supreme Court sides with Idaho and West Virginia, states would be allowed to ban transgender athletes from playing on women’s teams. For more information on these cases, go here.

Presidential Authority

Case #4: Learning Resources v. Trump

President Trump declared April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day” and imposed worldwide tariffs. He claimed authority to do so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), giving the president authority to “regulate importation” of goods.

Two small businesses sued the president, challenging his authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs and arguing that no emergency existed. U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras agreed. Meanwhile, in another case brought by several small businesses and a group of states, the U.S. Court of International Trade also ruled the tariffs were illegal. On August 29^th, the federal appeals court in D.C. also struck down a majority of President Trump’s tariffs.

On September 3^rd, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on presidential authority under the 1977 IEEPA, granting him emergency powers to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court decided less than a week later to take the cases, Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, ordering the cases to be argued together.

Oral arguments will be held on Wednesday, November 5, 2025.

Election Integrity

Case #5: Bost, et.al v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al

U.S. Representative Michael Bost, representing the 12^th District in Illinois, is challenging whether ballots received after Election Day should be counted and if candidates can challenge unjust election laws.

Illinois counts ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, stating Rep. Bost and the other two plaintiffs, Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, two presidential electors, had no standing to bring the case.

Judicial Watch, on behalf of the plaintiffs, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state laws governing the counting of mail-in ballots violate federal law by extending Election Day beyond the date specified by Congress.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, 2025. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could end the practice of counting ballots received long after Election Day. It could also allow candidates to challenge laws that affect their race.

For more information on this case, go here.

3 Key Petitions Awaiting Decisions

The Supreme Court is also facing petitions of critical impact to the nation, but has not yet decided to hear these cases. Let’s pray that they do decide and will rule in godly wisdom and righteousness.

Parental Rights

The parents of a public-school child were shocked to discover that their child’s middle school was secretly socially transitioning their 11-year-old daughter and hiding their child’s new name and gender identity from them. She was being called by male pronouns, using the boys’ bathroom at school, and given LGBTQ+ promoting materials.

The parents sued the school in the case of Foote v. Ludlow School Committee. The parents argued the school had interfered with their parental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. The school argued its gender policy was necessary to “ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment for students.”

The lower courts ruled that school authorities can substitute their judgment for the parents while the child is on school grounds. The courts also ruled that the school’s gender policy of “inclusivity” is an administrative rule, which excluded parents.

More than 1,000 public school districts have adopted secret transitioning policies.

The parents are petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Court’s decision and note, “The fact that parents reject gender ideology for non-religious reasons does not leave them without constitutional protection.”

For more information on this case, go here.

Overturning Same-Sex Marriage

In 2015, the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. Shortly after, Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue a marriage license on religious grounds to a gay couple, David Ermold and David Moore. She told them they could get a marriage license in another county.

Mr. Ermold sued and, in 2023, a jury held Ms. Davis personally liable for her actions and ordered her to pay the couple $100,000. In addition, the judge ordered her to pay $260,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Ms. Davis appealed, stating that issuing a marriage license would have violated her right to “freely exercise her religion.” The Appeals Court rejected her appeal, saying she was protected as a private citizen, but she was acting in her capacity as a government official when she denied the gay men a marriage license.

Ms. Davis, represented by Liberty Council, appealed to the Supreme Court, asking that it overturn the wrongful monetary judgment against Ms. Davis. She is also asking for the Court to overrule Obergefell, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage is not granted by the Constitution and has forced Ms. Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.

Obergefell was decided on a 5-4 vote. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented – all claiming the right to same-sex marriage has no basis in the Constitution. Ten years later, it is a different court with four new justices.

Could the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell and return the question of same-sex marriage back to the states, using similar reasoning as it did in overturning Roe v. Wade, where they found no constitutional basis for the right to abortion? Only four justices are needed to take up the case. Do they now have the five votes to overturn Obergefell?

For more information on this case, go here.

Birthright Citizenship

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of his birthright citizenship order.

In January of 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order ending automatic citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a legal citizen or legal immigrant to this country. Numerous cases were filed in courts all around the country, with judges issuing national injunctions against the president’s executive order, ruling that his Order violated the Constitution.

In the last term, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that lower-court judges could not issue nationwide injunctions, but did not rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.

On September 26^th, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, arguing, “the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”

The vote to decide to take up the president’s appeal may happen by early November. If they agree to decide the issue of birthright citizenship, oral arguments could be held in 2026 with a decision coming by June 30, 2026. This one decision could have a huge impact on the future of our country.

For more information on this case, go here.

Stay tuned to IFA for important Supreme Court updates regarding these cases and others, so we can pray for God’s will and righteousness to be upheld at the Supreme Court.

“Seek good and not evil, that you may live; So the Lord God of hosts will be with you, as you have spoken. Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. Let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” (Amos 5:14-15, 24)

Let’s Pray

Heavenly Father, we pray for the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. May they judge fairly and rule wisely. May their decisions in these cases and every case be based on Your righteousness and justice. May they rule in accordance with the Constitution and not seek to write law from the bench. May they rule according to Your will. May they agree to hear cases that promote and further your Kingdom and restrain evil. Protect the justices from all harm, from any threats or violence, from all spiritual attacks of the enemy, and from any sickness or illness of body and mind. Reveal to them Your true justice, mercy, and salvation which is in Your Son, Jesus, who is our Supreme Judge. In Jesus’ Name, Amen.

You can download IFA’s new prayer guide “Praying for the Supreme Court” to pray about these cases and for the justices going into the next term!

Share this article to mobilize prayer for these key cases!

Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda’s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images.