State AGs and the Supreme Court 2025 Term
Federalist Society
Holtzman Vogel will host a webinar with the Federalist Society to discuss the "State AGs and the Supreme Court 2025 Term."
State Attorneys and Solicitors General often appear at the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce or defend their state’s laws. In one of the most important cases of the 2024 Term, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and his office successfully defended Tennessee’s law barring medical treatment for gender transition in minors. Likewise, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his office defeated a First Amendment challenge to a state age verification law for certain websites publishing sexually explicit content.
This webinar previews the Supreme Court 2025 term from the perspective of State AGs and SGs, and it addresses how forthcoming SCOTUS cases might affect their jobs. First, we discuss Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which will consider the constitutionality of state laws barring biological males from participating in high school women’s sports. We also discuss First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, which addresses a State AG’s ability to enforce a civil investigative demand in state court, when the recipient of the demand challenges it in federal court. The forthcoming Term will also be an impactful one for redistricting and voting rights issues. In re-argument in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court will address whether majority-minority congressional districts violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Term will be important for bringing or defending lawsuits against state officials. In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the Court will address whether state officials can be sued for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and in Oliver v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, the Court will consider the availability of prospective relief under Section 1983 in certain circumstances. Finally, in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, the Court will consider the scope of state sovereign immunity for a transit authority created by state statute.
