How will this year’s Supreme Court decisions affect Rhode Islanders?

The cases: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox

These two cases were about bans on transgender girls participating on girls’ sports teams in West Virginia and Idaho, respectively.

Supreme Court’s decision: The court upheld Idaho and West Virginia’s sports bans, holding that these laws do not violate either federal anti-discrimination laws or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that states that have enacted sports bans can enforce them and discriminate against trans women and girls.

Rhode Island impact: Notwithstanding the SCOTUS ruling, trans kids are still able to participate in sports in Rhode Island, as we do not have any state laws that would ban participation. To the contrary: all RI public school districts are required to have specific policies in place to protect the rights of transgender and nonbinary students, including participation in school programs. Read about LGBTQ+ students’ rights in Rhode Island.

Those policies, which the ACLU helped get adopted, were recently challenged in court, but a RI Superior Court judge upheld their legality. You can read more about the case and our involvement in it here. In other words, action at the state level has ensured that, at least for now, this damaging court decision will not directly affect students’ rights in Rhode Island.

More broadly, transgender people of all ages are protected under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Read about trans rights in Rhode Island.

The case: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections
Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, sought damages against Louisiana state prison officials who forcibly cut his dreadlocks, disregarding his religious beliefs in direct violation of court decisions that protect the religious freedom of incarcerated individuals.

Supreme Court’s decision: The court ruled that the Louisiana man could not obtain damages from the prison officials who shaved his head even after he showed them a copy of a court ruling that allowed him to keep his long hair for religious reasons. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the prison officials that a federal law intended to protect the religious rights of prisoners did not authorize Landor’s lawsuit seeking damages from the officials.

Rhode Island impact: Once again, action at the state level has protected Rhode Islanders from the consequences of this damaging SCOTUS ruling. Our state has a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows people to sue the government when their religious freedom is infringed on, and specifically authorizes an award of damages for violations. This means that people in similar situations as Landor still have the right to sue the prison officials for violating their right to religious freedom here in RI.

In multiple cases over the past two years, the ACLU of RI has successfully represented incarcerated Native American and Muslim people after their religious freedoms were violated by prison officials at Rhode Island’s Adult Correctional Institutions.

The case: Louisiana v. Callais
This case focused on the legality of Louisiana’s congressional map, which was redrawn to include two majority-Black districts after several lower federal courts found that the previous map likely violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by diluting Black voting power. A group of white residents then challenged the map, alleging it constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Supreme Court’s decision: By a 6-3 vote, the court agreed with the white residents and struck down Louisiana’s redrawn congressional map. The justice’s ruling guts a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act and opens the door for states to justify discriminatory voting districts. As a result, Black voters and other voters of color will face significantly reduced legal options for challenging racial discrimination in redistricting and other voting practices.

Rhode Island impact: Rhode Island has no protections in state law to prevent the types of discriminatory voting practices that the SCOTUS decision now allows, but we hope to change that. The state needs to pass a state-level Voting Rights Act to prevent the discrimination in voting that SCOTUS now allows under the federal VRA. In 2026, the General Assembly came close to passing a state VRA, but the bill died at the end of the session. We will continue to strongly advocate for passage of this bill next legislative session. This is another example of how the state can — and must — take action to insulate Rhode Islanders from the devastating effect of damaging SCOTUS rulings.

Before the midterms: Read about your voting rights, and review our Voting Record to see how your legislators voted on key legislation.

The case: U.S. v. Hemani
In this case, New York resident Ali Hemani challenged a federal statute that makes it a felony for someone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance to possess a firearm. Hemani was charged for illegally possessing a firearm under this statute because he acknowledged that he used marijuana. Hemani argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated his Second Amendment rights.

Supreme Court’s decision: The court unanimously agreed with Hemani’s arguments and ruled that the statute was overly broad. With this ruling, the court curbs the ability of elected officials to impose an arbitrary and discriminatory penalty on people who use marijuana.

Rhode Island impact: The ACLU has been involved in a federal case this year in support of two Rhode Islanders who were charged with crimes under this federal law even though their use of marijuana was legal under state law. We expect that the SCOTUS decision will lead to the favorable resolution of this case and ensure that Rhode Island gun owners who use marijuana are not arbitrarily charged with a serious federal crime. You can read more about the Rhode Island case here.

The case: Chiles v. Salazar
This case considered Colorado’s ban on licensed physicians or mental health care providers engaging in “conversion therapy” on youth under the age of 18. Therapist Kaley Chiles argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights.

Supreme Court’s decision: By an 8-1 vote, the court ruled in favor of Chiles, holding that the law as applied to Chiles unconstitutionally discriminated against the content of her speech based on its viewpoint.

Rhode Island Impact: Rhode Island has a similar state law banning conversion therapy for minors that was passed in 2017. This law could now be open to a similar legal challenge.

Of particular note is that the ACLU of RI, which shares the concerns of the LGBTQ+ community about the harm this type of therapy causes, raised constitutional concerns about the legislation when it was being debated. We advocated that professional licensing entities were better suited than legislators to regulate medical practices like this. In light of the court decision, the state may want to consider amending the statute to address the free speech issues while protecting LGBTQ+ Rhode Islanders.

The case: Mullin v. Doe
One of many immigration-related cases SCOTUS considered this year, this case challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants living and working legally in the United States.

Supreme Court’s decision: By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that Syrian and Haitian nationals are not entitled to court orders postponing the termination of their status. The decision ends a legal protection covering hundreds of thousands of migrants who have come to the U.S. after fleeing instability and violence in their home countries.

Rhode Island Impact: There are thousands of Haitian immigrants in the Ocean State, and some of these Rhode Islanders who have TPS may face deportation because of this devastating decision. Unfortunately, this is one court ruling that the State itself cannot take any action to override.

However, we have been working with coalition partners to pass various other types of protections for immigrants into state law. Just this year, the ACLU worked to successfully pass legislation to prevent ICE from arresting people in civil courts and to ensure that Rhode Island immigrants aren’t subject to automatic deportation for minor offenses.

Be prepared: We have educational materials about what to do if you are detained by ICE or police, as well as information for what you can do as a bystander to ICE enforcement actions.