The current U.S. Supreme Court term features major cases on gender-affirming care for minors, federal agency authority, firearms regulation, and religious liberty, along with significant questions about state power and administrative law. So far, the court has issued several decisions on employment and immigration law, with many high-profile cases still awaiting decision.

UCLA School of Law’s experts are available to provide analysis and context on the Supreme Court's most consequential cases, including rulings that could reshape gun rights, immigration policy, LGBT protections, and law enforcement oversight. Here's what they are saying.

Barnes v. Felix examines whether police officers' use of force should be judged based on the totality of the circumstances or only at the “moment of threat.”

“At stake is the law governing police violence against members of the public. This case will determine whether courts will evaluate the reasonableness of police officers’ behavior throughout the encounter, or look only at the moment police perceive a threat and ignore whether they have caused the danger. This has critical implications for whether and how we hold law enforcement accountable,” says Aaron Littman, assistant professor of law and faculty director of the Prisoners' Rights Clinic.

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee's law banning certain medical treatments for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“More than a third of transgender youth in the U.S. aged 13-17 live in a state that denies them access to treatments their doctors have determined to be medically necessary, while permitting the same treatments for non-transgender youth. The question asked in this case is, essentially, ‘Does the Constitution prohibit states from treating youth differently because they are transgender?’” says Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton looks at whether states may require Internet porn sites to do age verification of their users to confirm that they are adults.

“In 1968, the Supreme Court held that bricks-and-mortar stores can in effect be required to check that customers are adults before selling them pornographic materials. But in 2004, it struck down a law aimed at doing the same for Internet porn. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court is going to have to decide what’s the rule for the Internet in 2025,” says Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Garland v. VanDerStok will determine whether ghost gun assembly kits fall under federal firearms regulations.

“This case is a challenge to a Biden administration rule that required do-it-at-home gun parts kits to be treated as firearms under federal law. Under federal law, firearms are subject to certain sale restrictions. Only certain people are allowed to purchase firearms, and gun dealers must conduct a background check. The question in this case is whether the Biden administration rule that requires these gun parts kits to be treated just like firearms,” says Adam Winkler, the Connell Professor of Law.

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos examines whether U.S. gun makers can be held liable for Mexican cartel violence and illegal gun trafficking across the border.

“This case is being decided at a time when the Supreme Court has been expansively reading the Second Amendment to provide a broad right to keep and bear arms. And although this case doesn't directly deal with the Second Amendment, it could be influenced by the justices’ understanding of the importance of gun makers to fulfilling the Second Amendment right,” Winkler says.