The U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term 2025 featured a shift in how justices applied legal philosophies, with members of the conservative majority and liberal minority adopting arguments once associated with the opposing side. According to a report by Professor Richard Re for SCOTUSblog, these shifts occurred across several areas, including originalism, substantive due process, and the use of foreign law. The term included rulings on executive removal power, birthright citizenship, and state bans on transgender athletes.
Historically, originalism—the practice of interpreting the Constitution based on its original public meaning—was a primary tool for conservative justices, while liberal justices often critiqued it. In the 2025 term, however, liberal justices frequently engaged with historical materials in dissents, such as in Trump v. Slaughter. Conversely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh used pragmatic rather than originalist arguments to insulate the Federal Reserve from presidential control in Trump v. Cook.
In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the conservative supermajority enforced a new substantive due process right regarding parental rights in public schools. This doctrine, which allows courts to protect rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, was previously a foundation for liberal rulings and was frequently criticized by past conservative justices like Antonin Scalia. Additionally, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent in Trump v. Barbara cited foreign legal materials from Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand, a practice that conservative jurists had historically rejected as inappropriate for interpreting U.S. law.
The scale of these shifts is reflected in the court's evolving rules for standing—the legal right to bring a lawsuit. In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the six conservative justices established a categorical rule allowing candidates to challenge vote-counting procedures based on fairness and pragmatism, rather than the traditional requirement of showing a specific "injury-in-fact." This change lowers the barrier for political candidates to initiate litigation over election results, potentially increasing the number of lawsuits filed following state and local elections.
These developments set a precedent for how the court will handle future challenges to executive power and administrative agencies. By moving away from Chevron deference—a former principle where courts deferred to agency expertise—and adopting the "major questions doctrine," the court has taken a more active role in limiting the authority of federal agencies. These changes will be noticed by small-business owners and federal workers as specific agency regulations on tariffs and labor are increasingly subject to judicial strikes. The court will continue to apply these realigned philosophies as it enters its next term, with further rulings expected to clarify the limits of standing in cases involving the second Trump administration.