Health care, citizenship and LGBTQ+ rights: Five Supreme Court cases to watch

• Amid the early months of Trump's second term, lower court judges have erected a number of roadblocks to his administration's sweeping actions — many of which have ended up in the high court's hands.

The big picture: The conservative-majority court is poised to release a flurry of opinions ahead of its summer recess.

Nationwide injunctions for birthright citizenship

One of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court concerns whether Trump can push forward with his attempt to rewrite birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898.

• The case before the court is not over whether Trump's policy, which challenges the court's precedent on birthright citizenship protections, is constitutional.
• Rather, the justices heard May arguments over whether a single district court can freeze a whole federal policy. The Justice Department says no, arguing that courts' rulings should apply only to the parties before them.
• The court's conservative majority seemed inclined to rein in the orders that have disrupted Trump's agenda, Axios' Sam Baker reported. However, it seemed divided over the proper way to do it.

The other side: Liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioned what would happen if the high court decided that lower courts couldn't freeze the citizenship policy nationwide — but then later deemed it illegal.

• In that time, thousands of children could be denied citizenship.
• Ultimately, Baker reported, questioning did not paint an especially clear image of how the court will likely rule.

Gender-affirming care

The highly anticipated decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti could have major repercussions for transgender youth nationwide.

• It questions whether Tennessee unconstitutionally banned gender-affirming care for minors, but its implications could stretch far past the Volunteer State's borders as the Trump administration and Republican politicians across the country pursue restrictions on trans rights.
• Since 2021, more than two dozen states have passed laws seeking to restrict youth access to gender-affirming care.
• Multiple leading medical groups support gender-affirming care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but the Supreme Court in December arguments appeared inclined not to overrule state bans.

LGBTQ-themed books in schools

The Supreme Court will decide whether parents can opt their children out of school curricula that involve LGBTQ+ storylines.

Friction Point: The case stems from the addition of LGBTQ-inclusive children's books to a Maryland school district's curriculum. Parents in Montgomery County were initially offered an opt-out, but that policy was later changed.

• A group of parents sued, arguing their religious freedom was violated because they couldn't opt their children out.

• During oral arguments for the case, the court appeared likely to back the parents.

Planned Parenthood and Medicaid access

At the center of the first abortion-adjacent case since Trump's second term began is whether Medicaid patients can choose their provider for services.

• The case stemmed from South Carolina's push to block Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics from receiving funds through the state's Medicaid program.
• Medicaid funds can't generally cover abortions, but Planned Parenthood provides other medical services.
• The state is arguing that Medicaid enrollees don't have the right to sue a state to enforce their ability to see their preferred health provider.

Zoom in: The decision will have implications for Medicaid enrollees' ability to freely choose their health provider for any service.

• But it would have a particularly acute impact for Planned Parenthood, since a large part of the providers' funding comes from Medicaid reimbursement.

The Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate

The Supreme Court's decision over the Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate will mark the culmination of years of legal battles.

Context: The ACA requires most private health care plans to cover specific services that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is made up of volunteer experts, recommends. That gives millions access to no-cost cancer screenings, vaccinations and more.

• A federal appeals court ruled that the task force is unconstitutionally imposing coverage requirements because its members aren't politically appointed.
• The federal government argues that the HHS secretary has appropriate oversight over the task force.

If the court sides with companies challenging the requirement, private health care plans could charge beneficiaries co-pays or deductibles for services that were recommended after the ACA was signed, Axios' Maya Goldman reported.

Go deeper: SCOTUS comes to Trump's rescue