Supreme Court REVEALS ITS PLAN for Trump in FIRST DECISIONS

SCOTUS is Back: The MAGA Six Target Conversion Therapy and Election Integrity

The Supreme Court is officially open for its 2025-2026 term, and the two initial oral arguments signal that the court’s MAGA majority is set on aggressively advancing a conservative, ideological agenda, particularly around the intersection of religious liberty and key social and political issues.

Case 1: Conversion Therapy Bans and the First Amendment

The first case challenged a Colorado law, similar to those in over 20 other states, that bans conversion therapy for minors—a practice documented by medical and psychological professionals as harmful.

The central conflict revolved around whether the ban violates the First Amendment rights of a Christian therapist and her potential patients.

The Majority’s Frame: The MAGA majority appears poised to treat conversion therapy as protected speech and a matter of religious freedom, subjecting the ban to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny. If they apply this standard, they are highly likely to find the law unconstitutional.
The Counter-Argument (Treatment vs. Speech): Critics argue this is a fundamental misapplication of the First Amendment. Therapy is not merely speech; it is medical treatment or a mental health procedure. No one is stopping the therapist from speaking about her religious beliefs; the law regulates the administration of a potentially harmful procedure, much like any other medical treatment.
The Inconsistency: This approach is seen as deeply inconsistent, as the same court is willing to allow states to heavily regulate or ban gender-affirming care (which is also a medical procedure) for minors, suggesting a legal standard is being chosen to fit a conservative ideological outcome—prioritizing conservative religious views over documented medical standards of care for LGBTQ+ people. This ruling is expected to be a major setback for the rights and well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.

Case 2: Who Can Challenge Election Laws? (Standing)

The second case, related to the highly polarized issue of election integrity, was less about the merits of a specific election rule (like allowing extra time for postmarked mail-in ballots) and more about a procedural gateway: standing.

The Question: Who has the legal right (standing) to challenge a state’s election laws? Specifically, can a candidate who lost by a wide margin, and whose outcome wouldn’t have been changed by the challenged rule, still sue?
The MAGA Aim: The MAGA six are expected to widen the net of who has standing, effectively loosening the requirements for injury that must be shown.
The Reverse Engineering: This is viewed as reverse engineering jurisprudence. When the court wants to dismiss a case that might favor the Democratic or liberal side (as seen in past instances like the 303 Creative case on the website designer), they often invoke the lack of standing as a fundamental bar. Here, however, they are expected to relax the standing rules to encourage an onslaught of election-related lawsuits—a key goal of Donald Trump and his allies who wish to undermine faith in mail-in and early voting.

The Legitimacy Crisis and Court Reform

Both cases highlight what many critics see as a legitimacy crisis on the Supreme Court. The criticism is that the court’s conservative majority is no longer applying consistent legal principles (like originalism or textualism) but is instead making up rules and legal doctrines to achieve politically and ideologically desired results.

The concern is heightened by the court’s increased use of the “shadow docket” to issue emergency orders without full explanation, analysis, or precedent.

In response, there is a renewed call for Supreme Court reform—specifically, packing the court by increasing the number of seats (e.g., to 15) to break the three-generation Republican control of the institution and restore what supporters call “civility” and faith in the judiciary.

What do you think is the most immediate change needed to restore public confidence in the Supreme Court?