The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, engaged in all five cases by supplying legal opinions through amicus briefs and public explainers. The ERLC authored two briefs and collaborated with other faith groups across the board, signaling its direct involvement in shaping legal arguments that proved persuasive to the justices.

Religious Nonprofit Wins Recognition as Ministry

On June 5, the Court unanimously ruled in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission that a Catholic nonprofit based in Wisconsin could claim a tax exemption typically reserved for religious organizations. The justices overturned a lower court’s decision, asserting that the state improperly overstepped its bounds by defining what counts as religious activity.

The decision permits Catholic Charities Bureau and its affiliate agencies to participate in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program. This program is separate from the state unemployment system and allows religious groups to manage benefits in line with faith-based principles.

Brent Leatherwood, president of the ERLC, commended the ruling, saying that government interference in defining religious ministry undermines constitutional protections. He added that ministries should be free to conduct charitable work without conforming to secular definitions imposed by state agencies.

Supreme Court Upholds Treatment Ban for Minors

On June 18, in United States v. Skrmetti, a divided 6-3 court upheld Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which restricts gender-transition medical procedures for minors. The ruling found the state was within constitutional bounds when banning puberty blockers and surgeries for individuals under 18, citing a rational basis review.

Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that the law differentiates by age and medical usage rather than by sex. The ruling still allows the use of similar medications for non-gender-related conditions and does not prevent adults from seeking gender-transition care.

The ERLC supported the decision, emphasizing the need to protect children from what it views as harmful interventions. Leatherwood stated that the state has an appropriate and necessary role in preserving the well-being of vulnerable youth confronted by cultural forces he described as dismissive of biological realities.

Medicaid Ruling Curbs Planned Parenthood Claims

In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, decided on June 26, the Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina can exclude certain providers, including Planned Parenthood, from Medicaid funding. The 6-3 majority held that individuals and providers lack standing to challenge the exclusion under the “any-qualified-provider" language of the Medicaid Act.

The decision effectively bars lawsuits that seek to force states to direct Medicaid funds to abortion-related services. Leatherwood hailed the judgment as a significant step in safeguarding what he described as “vulnerable preborn lives,” aligning with state-level efforts to redirect public health resources in line with local values.

Following the legal win, however, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of related Medicaid cuts on July 7. Federal litigation continues to examine aspects of South Carolina’s initiative as part of broader legislative efforts bundled in a package known as the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Parents Regain Opt-Out Rights over Curriculum

The Court further ruled on June 27 in favor of parental rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor when it blocked a school district in Montgomery County, Maryland, from enforcing policies that required students to read LGBTQ-themed books without parental opt-outs. The 6-3 decision granted an injunction to families seeking to preserve their ability to shield children from materials they believe conflict with their religious convictions.

The dispute stemmed from a 2022 curriculum revision that implemented diversity and inclusion themes for children in pre-K through eighth grade. The school board later eliminated opt-out provisions, prompting legal action from a broad religious coalition of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents.

Leatherwood praised the decision for affirming what he called the foundational rights of parents to guide their children's moral and spiritual education, particularly in public schools. Parents, he noted, should not be forced to compromise their deeply held beliefs.

Texas Law Requiring Website Age Checks Upheld

Also on June 27, in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld a 2023 Texas law requiring adult websites to implement age verification protocols. The 6-3 ruling found that the law served a vital interest in protecting minors and did not significantly infringe upon free speech rights.

Texas House Bill 1181 applies to online platforms where harmful content makes up more than one-third of the materials. The law also mandates public warnings related to the dangers of pornography and exempts internet providers, search engines, and social media services from the requirements.

Leatherwood described the ruling as a constitutional and much-needed mechanism to protect children from what he termed a “predatory and dehumanizing industry.” He added that basic digital safeguards should be the minimum expectation in an increasingly online society.

Broader Implications Across State Policy

Randy Davis, president of the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, called the ruling in the gender-treatment case a major affirmation of policies designed to safeguard children across the country. Similar support came from leaders in other cases, emphasizing common state interests in protecting youth, supporting parental authority, and defending religious institutions.

ERLC Vice President Miles Mullin also addressed the Medicaid case, noting that Planned Parenthood is unlikely to accept the loss of substantial taxpayer funding without further legal challenge. He expressed hope that lingering legal barriers would be lifted so that legislation passed by representative bodies can be fully implemented.

Together, the outcomes of these five Supreme Court rulings marked a significant achievement for religious and socially conservative groups. The decisions reflect ongoing momentum at the state and federal levels to realign public policies with faith-driven advocacy positions broadly prioritized by the Southern Baptist Convention.