BOSTON — High-impact rulings and emergency docket decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court are shaping state policy more aggressively than ever before. Amy Howe, legal analyst and co-founder of the Washington-based Supreme Court tracker SCOTUSblog, said in a special session hosted last week by the National Conference of State Legislatures that a deluge of decisions from a hyper-involved federal government on issues from gender-affirming care to school parents’ religious rights will drive changes across the country to which state governments, including Oklahoma, must rapidly adjust.
“When I look back and think about this term, I think about the emergency docket,” Howe said. “The court was extremely active on the emergency docket this term, and in particular, the Trump administration was very active on the emergency docket.”
Between his inauguration in January until July 26, President Donald Trump’s administration filed 21 emergency docket applications with the Supreme Court. President Joe Biden filed 19 in his entire four-year term.
This story was reported by Gaylord News, a Washington reporting project of the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma.
“It was really a separate order of magnitude from what it had been in the past,” Howe said.
On top of their quantity, the decisions have far-reaching implications, some of which have already affected Oklahoma.
In one case originating in Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony is grounds for a new trial. In another case from Maryland, the court held that parents must be given notice before schools require elementary students to participate in lessons on gender and sexuality that conflict with their religious beliefs. In a third case from South Carolina, the court ruled that Medicaid recipients cannot challenge which providers a state contracts with, allowing the state to cancel coverage for Planned Parenthood.
Richard Glossip back on center stage in Oklahoma
In Glossip v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors’ failure to amend previous false testimony violated due process protections and sent the case back for a new trial. The central question was whether Oklahoma could proceed with Richard Glossip’s execution despite acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that may have infringed on his rights.
Howe noted that, following the ruling, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond is now pursuing a non-capital first-degree murder conviction of Glossip in Oklahoma County. That position represents a shift from the 2023 email discussion between Drummond and Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, who recently moved to enforce the purported agreement, which would have allowed Glossip to accept a time-served plea on an accessory to murder charge.
Glossip has a status conference set for Thursday, at which District Court Judge Heather Coyle is expected to set a motion hearing for Knight’s effort to enforce the email exchange with Drummond.
Maryland case affirms parental rights on gender, sexuality lessons
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a Maryland school district violated parents’ First Amendment rights by requiring elementary students to participate in lessons on gender and sexuality that conflict with their religious beliefs without giving parents notice or opt-out options.
The case was sent back to the lower courts, with the Supreme Court concluding that government policies infringe on parents’ First Amendment free exercise rights when they interfere with the religious upbringing of children.
That ruling could resonate in Oklahoma, where legislative proposals involving how schools can approach sex and gender were introduced earlier this year. Senate Bill 759 would have required written parental consent for any sexual education instruction and advance notice for lessons involving sexual orientation or gender identity. House Bill 1964 would have extended similar notification and consent requirements to topics on diversity, equity, inclusion, gender or sexuality.
Neither measure received even a committee hearing this year, but the outcome of Mahmoud v. Taylor could embolden future efforts to push similar legislation. Each bill remains alive for the 2026 session of the Oklahoma Legislature.
South Carolina ruling precedes Stitt order on abortion discussions
Another case that quickly affected Oklahoma — in Medina v. Planned Parenthood — arose after a South Carolina Medicaid recipient was disqualified from receiving medical services such as contraception, cancer screenings and STI treatments following an executive order from Gov. Henry McMaster. That order directed the Department of Health and Human Services to remove abortion providers from the state’s Medicaid program.
The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled June 26 that the Medicaid Act does not unambiguously confer an enforceable individual right, and therefore private plaintiffs cannot challenge a state’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid coverage.
Roughly a month after that decision, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt issued an executive order July 31 directing the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to terminate SoonerCare contracts with any providers that “perform, refer to, or are affiliated with abortion services.” The order also prohibits state agencies from awarding public funds to such providers.
“Oklahoma is a pro-life state, and our policies should reflect that at every level of our government,” Stitt said in a press release. “We won’t allow tax dollars to indirectly subsidize and flow into the abortion industry under the guise of women’s health. My order makes sure every public dollar aligns with our values and supports providers who respect life at every stage.”
Skrmetti case upholds #okleg law from 2023
During her NCSL presentation, Howe also said the court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging a Tennessee law that restricted certain medical treatments for transgender minors, will make waves in coming years. Groups of transgender minors, their parents and health care providers argued that the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled otherwise June 18.
That ruling’s impact has also been felt in Oklahoma. On Aug. 6, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma’s denial of a preliminary injunction in Poe et al. v. Drummond et al. The case was brought by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma, the law firm Jenner & Block, five families of transgender adolescents and Dr. Shauna Lawlis of OU Health.
The plaintiffs challenged Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 613 from 2023, which prohibits medical providers from performing “gender transition procedures” on anyone under age 18 who does not have a “verifiable disorder of sexual development.” The circuit court denied the appeal Aug. 6 in a decision citing the Skrmetti decision in finding that the legislation does not unlawfully discriminate.
“SB 613 prohibits gender transition procedures for any person under the age of 18. If the law truly sought to discriminate against transgender persons, the prohibition would not distinguish based on age. Instead, the purpose becomes clear: children’s welfare,” the decision stated.
Drummond said the ruling protects Oklahoma children from “so-called ‘gender transition’ procedures.”
“My office mounted a vigorous defense of this commonsense law to protect children, and I am grateful the battle is now won,” Drummond said in an Aug. 7 press release. “Thanks to this critical victory, our children will no longer be subjected to the lifelong consequences of these damaging procedures.”
Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Oklahoma issued statements that the ban puts “political dogma” above the welfare of citizens.
“Today’s ruling is a devastating outcome for transgender youth and their families across Oklahoma and another tragic result of the Supreme Court’s errant and harmful ruling in Skrmetti,” the plaintiffs said in a press release. “Oklahoma’s ban is openly discriminatory and provably harmful to the transgender youth of this state, putting political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors.”
State Senate Floor Leader Julie Daniels (R-Bartlesville) said she was grateful the court acknowledged that her bill was not motivated by discrimination, but by the “state’s interest in safeguarding the long-term health and well-being of all children in our state.”
“This law protects children from making life-changing, medical decisions until they reach some level of maturity and can better understand the risks to their long-term health,” Daniels said in a press release Aug. 8. “The mental health challenges of gender dysphoria are very real. These young people and their families deserve to have attention focused on behavioral and mental health care, not rushing them into making adult decisions as a child.”
