The Supreme Court’s new term began on the first Monday of this month, and it started on a sour note. An annual Washington, D.C., Sunday service to pray for the justices had none of the justices in attendance this year because of a security threat.
Hours before the service was to start, police arrested a radical leftist on the steps of the church. He possessed hundreds of explosive devices and a manifesto. The notebook was full of hatred toward Christians, Jews, and the Supreme Court. That the police were able to apprehend this hate-filled extremist before the service began was a blessing.
There are several important cases before the high court this term, involving major JDFI policy priorities, all consistent with the values Dr. James Dobson dedicated his life to defend. While nothing is guaranteed, we are in a much stronger position on the court today than at any time in modern history. The addition of three conservative justices appointed by President Trump during his first administration dramatically shifted the ideological balance of the court. Cases involving faith, family, and freedom are much more likely to go our way.
Here are the cases we are following closely:
First Amendment
Chiles v. Salazar was just argued before the Supreme Court. The justices heard a challenge to a Colorado law that banned so-called “conversion therapy.” The law was a direct attack on the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religious liberty.
Powerful LGBTQ activists rammed a law through Congress that effectively gagged counselors—especially Christian counselors—regarding matters of human sexuality. When it came to addressing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, counselors were given only one option: The law mandates that they must affirm the individual’s homosexual attraction or gender confusion and could not counsel a patient to embrace heterosexuality or their biological gender. Doing so, in violation of this discriminatory law, could put a counselor’s license at risk. To be clear, the practice under debate in this case is voluntary talk therapy.
During oral arguments in front of the justices, a solid majority of them appeared to believe the Colorado law is unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito said the law “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.”1 Even liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree with Alito. This could possibly be a 7 to 2 decision to strike down the Colorado law and uphold the First Amendment rights of faith-based counselors.
Pro-Life
We are proudly pro-life, and we believe that, regardless of one’s opinion on abortion, organizations dedicated to helping women in need ought to be able to work freely. But the pro-abortion lobby that claims to be “pro-choice” is doing everything it can to prevent women from choosing life.
In 2015, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act. The law required crisis pregnancy centers, many of which were Christian ministries, to also advertise abortion services, among other things, inside their offices. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down the California law in 2018. Now, the state of New Jersey is taking a different approach to intimidate crisis pregnancy centers.
Without any evidence of wrongdoing, the attorney general of New Jersey issued an extremely broad subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, demanding a tremendous amount of financial records, including the organization’s donor list. Many crisis pregnancy centers operate on very tight budgets, and this demand from the state forced First Choice to spend valuable resources on unnecessary compliance and legal costs.
Why do New Jersey bureaucrats need a Christian nonprofit organization’s donor list? There is an implied threat that the identity of the donors could be exposed, leading to harassment and retaliation. In an age of growing left-wing violence from rabid pro-abortion extremists, this concern is more than just hypothetical. It is a very real danger. If donors become worried about their own safety, they may stop supporting a ministry. In this instance, women would be deprived of aid during an unplanned pregnancy.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is suing the New Jersey attorney general for creating a chilling effect on its operations and the exercise of its people’s First Amendment rights. The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, has not been scheduled for oral arguments yet.
JDFI is closely following the case because, as we have seen, the Left does not hesitate to weaponize the law against its enemies. If a crisis pregnancy center in New Jersey can be forced to surrender its donor list, left-wing bureaucrats could attempt to force other Christian non-profit organizations, including JDFI, to surrender our donor lists.
Transgender Ideology
Transgender ideology is once again before the Supreme Court. Last year, the justices heard a case challenging Tennessee’s law protecting children from chemical and surgical castrations. The Left euphemistically calls these treatments “gender-affirming care.” There is nothing affirming or caring about them.
These horrific procedures deny biological gender and subject children to a lifetime of dangerous side effects and medicalization with no scientifically proven benefits. Far from “caring,” these extreme procedures involve radical physical alterations to a child’s body when, in truth, they need mental health counseling. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that states can protect children from these gruesome medical experiments.
This year, the justices will consider cases from two states on the issue of men and boys in women’s and girls’ sports. Idaho and West Virginia, along with more than two dozen other states, have passed laws requiring athletes to play on teams that match their biological gender. This is not discrimination. It is just common sense.
Male athletes are physically stronger than female athletes. They have an unfair advantage that disadvantages female athletes in more ways than one. Beyond the humiliation of losing a rigged competition, that loss often has major repercussions, including the loss of awards, prize money, or a college scholarship.
In many cases, female athletes are humiliated even further by being forced to share locker rooms with men who claim to be women. So, for girls and women, this is not just about sports. It is also about their privacy and physical safety before, during, and after competitions.
The Trump administration is aggressively fighting this attack on women, ordering colleges and universities to recognize only two genders—male and female—and to follow the original and correct meaning of Title IX. That law mandates equal opportunity for women in sports. Some schools, such as the University of Pennsylvania, are complying, while others are resisting.
The LGBTQ lobby and their allies are so extreme, the justices of the Supreme Court are being forced to consider whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment somehow create a “right” for men to dominate women’s sports and trespass in women’s private spaces.
I am confident that members of Congress did not have in mind sick men pretending to be women when they wrote and passed the 14th Amendment and Title IX. I hope and pray a majority of justices will respect common sense and the natural law when they consider the cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
JDFI will continue to closely follow these and other important cases as the Supreme Court’s term progresses. We will continue to keep you informed of their important public policy implications for your families.
- Totenberg, Nina. “Supreme Court Hears Case on LGBTQ Conversion Therapy Ban.” NPR, October 7, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/07/nx-s1-5564776/supreme-court-hears-case-on-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-ban.
