As 2025 draws to a close, the Supreme Court has delivered a resounding message: The Constitution’s protections for family, faith and freedom remain vibrant and enforceable. Through decisive rulings and thoughtful consideration of pending cases, the Court has demonstrated its commitment to safeguarding Americans’ most fundamental liberties against government overreach.

The year’s most significant victory came in June, with Mahmoud v. Taylor, a landmark case that reaffirmed parents’ constitutional right to direct their children’s religious upbringing, even within public-school walls. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito delivered a powerful rebuke to Montgomery County, Maryland, school officials who had woven LGBTQ-themed storybooks throughout the pre-K-through-sixth-grade curriculum, while denying parents notice or the opportunity to opt their children out.

The case involved courageous parents from diverse religious traditions who objected to books that undermine their faith’s teachings about sexuality, marriage and gender. 

As Alito explained, these books are “unmistakably normative” and “clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.” One book, for example, doesn’t simply acknowledge same-sex marriage as an existing practice but presents it as “to be celebrated.” Others reject the belief that biological sex reflects divine creation and “encourage children to adopt a contrary viewpoint.”

The Court’s majority had no difficulty finding that the school board’s actions substantially interfered with the children’s religious development. Most significantly, Alito wrote that the right to direct one’s child’s religious upbringing “would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” For the many parents who “have no choice but to send their children to a public school” due to financial constraints, this principle ensures meaningful protection.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion delivered an important warning to school boards nationwide. Noting that sex education for young children is “a relatively recent development,” Thomas cautioned that “conformity-driven rationales” promoting “equity and inclusion” do not amount to “interests of the highest order” sufficient to override constitutional protections. Courts, he wrote, must “carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution.’”

Mahmoud preserves the sacred role of parents in forming their children according to their deepest convictions — a principle essential to religious freedom in a pluralistic society.

While Mahmoud represents a clear triumph, the Court’s split decision in St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School v. Drummond left important questions unresolved. The 4-4 deadlock that resulted from Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal allowed Oklahoma’s attorney general to prevent a Catholic charter school from opening despite the state charter school board’s approval.

Yet this temporary setback reveals an encouraging reality: At least four justices (Thomas, Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) recognize that excluding religious schools from charter-school programs constitutes religious discrimination. These originalist justices understand that charter schools, being privately created and privately controlled, are not government entities engaged in state action. Barrett, had she participated, would likely have joined them, creating a five-justice majority.

As evenly split decisions create no binding precedent, it’s only a matter of time before another case on this issue reaches the Court. When it does, the constitutional principle established in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin should prevail: “Once a State decides to subsidize private education, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

The Court’s current term presents opportunities for additional victories for religious freedom. 

In Chiles v. Salazar, argued in October, the justices scrutinized Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” — a law that prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in voluntary talk therapy with minors struggling with sexual-orientation or gender-identity issues if that therapy aims to align with the client’s religious convictions.

Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor, argues that the law violates her First Amendment right to speak truthfully with clients who seek guidance consistent with their faith. 

During oral argument, it became clear that a majority believe the law should face strict scrutiny, given its profound impact on free speech. Gorsuch called the law “pretty self-executing,” while Barrett pressed Colorado for its “best evidence” of harm, noting the medical uncertainty in this contested area.

The law’s asymmetry is striking: It permits counseling that affirms gender dysphoria without parental consent while barring counseling sought to align identity with biological sex. As Chiles’ attorney noted, even the U.K.’s comprehensive Cass Review found that gender medicine operates on “shaky foundations.” 

A ruling in Chiles’ favor would affirm that the Constitution bars states from compelling speech or punishing families and counselors who seek guidance consistent with conscience and truth.

Finally, in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued this month, the Court is confronting government lawfare against religious nonprofits. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a known pro-abortion advocate who has publicly collaborated with Planned Parenthood, issued a sweeping subpoena demanding 10 years of records from a Christian pregnancy-center network, including the names and addresses of nearly 5,000 donors.

This case has united an extraordinary coalition: The ACLU, the ACLU of New Jersey, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 19 states all support First Choice’s right to challenge the subpoena in federal court. They recognize what’s at stake: If states can weaponize investigatory tools to target disfavored viewpoints, no advocacy group is safe.

The case echoes Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, where Chief Justice John Roberts struck down California’s donor-disclosure rule, warning against “a dragnet for sensitive donor information.” 

For faith-based ministries dependent on donors who give according to religious conviction, this case will determine whether they can engage in public moral witness without government exposure of their supporters.

As this consequential year concludes, the Supreme Court has proven itself to be a faithful guardian of our first freedoms. 

From protecting parental rights in Mahmoud and signaling support for fair treatment of religious schools as well as counselors’ and donors’ constitutional liberties, the U.S. Supreme Court has helped family, faith and freedom flourish in American life. The decisions ahead promise to strengthen these foundations even further.