The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to free speech and the free exercise of their religion. However, the Circuit Courts have disagreed on the line between religious freedom, free speech, and a state’s ability to protect its minor citizens from harmful practices.

Conversion therapy is a discredited therapeutic practice that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation from gay or bisexual to heterosexual and an individual’s gender identity from transgender or non-binary to cisgender. Mainstream psychological experts have denounced conversion therapy. The American Psychological Association states that “[conversion therapy] puts individuals at a significant risk of harm.”

Discriminatory intent claims involve proving that an intentional action, motivated by a discriminatory purpose, caused harm. This is sometimes also called disparate treatment. In contrast, a disparate impact claim can be brought when no intentional discrimination is apparent, but the outcomes of an action have negatively impacted a protected class. In the case of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its amendments in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, this protected class is individuals with disabilities.

In 2015, the Supreme Court reviewed the case of Michael Kingsley, a pretrial detainee who suffered a brutal assault at the hands of his jailers and sued them for using excessive force in violation of his rights. The Court held in Kingsley v. Hendrickson that claims of excessive force against a pretrial detainee must be evaluated against an objective standard. This means that when a court is determining whether excessive force is used, it must do so from the point of view of the reasonable officer who was present at the time (as opposed to the perspective of the specific officer involved). The Court explained that “the Due Process Clause protects pretrial detainees from excessive force that amounts to punishment,” which can occur when the force at issue is not “reasonably related to the legitimate purpose of holding detainees for trial.”

When it comes to civilians recording police actions, the First Amendment and doctrine of qualified immunity often come into conflict with each other.

Is there a First Amendment right to record the police in public, and does this right outweigh the doctrine of qualified immunity?

The most recent ruling on abortion restrictions came in June 2020, when the Supreme Court issued its’ opinion in the case of June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (2020). In June Medical, the Court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that a Texas law that required abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges did not place an undue burden on people seeking abortions, holding instead that the law was a violation of prior Supreme Court precedent. However, the divided Court failed to agree on a single standard for lower courts to apply to future abortion restrictions. The plurality argued that a balancing test, similar to the one advanced in the Court’s 2016 holding in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), should be applied to these restrictions, with the benefits of the laws being weighed against the potential burdens. Contrastingly, the Chief Justice, in his concurring opinion, advanced a standard that provided greater discretion to state legislatures. These contradicting standards have ultimately led to a single question: what June Medical standard should courts apply to state-level abortion restrictions?

In formulating the prison mailbox rule, the Houston Court specified the struggles of “pro se prisoner[s]” in filing paperwork. So, does this rule, where a prisoner’s notice of appeal is filed when he hands it to prison officials to be mailed, apply to all prisoners, including those represented by counsel (broad interpretation), or only to pro se prisoners (narrow interpretation)?