The Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term has already produced several consequential rulings affecting healthcare. Additional decisions are still expected before the Court adjourns for the summer, likely in late June or early July. Below is a roundup of some of the most significant healthcare-related decisions and pending cases from the current term. 

Recently Decided Cases Affecting Healthcare 

• Mifepristone Telehealth Access: State of Louisiana v. Danco/GenBioPro
  The litigation challenges FDA authority over telehealth prescribing and mail distribution of mifepristone. Yesterday, the Court ruled 7-2 to temporarily preserve nationwide access while litigation in lower courts proceed, but the ultimate ruling could significantly reshape federal pharmaceutical regulation and interstate commerce. A decision limiting FDA authority could create a pathway for states to challenge or restrict federally approved medications more broadly, with implications extending well beyond reproductive healthcare policy. It’s expected that this case will present itself again before the Supreme Court, possibly during its next term beginning this fall. 

• Conversion Therapy: Chiles v. Salazar
  The Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, as applied to speech-only counseling, triggered heightened First Amendment scrutiny because it regulated therapist speech based on viewpoint. The decision didn’t endorse conversion therapy itself, but it significantly expanded constitutional protections for professional speech. The ruling could affect state authority to regulate licensed health professionals more broadly, particularly in behavioral health and mental health settings.  

Major Pending Healthcare Cases  

• Second Amendment Rights of Unlawful Drug Users: United States v. Hemani
  The Court is considering whether federal restrictions on firearm possession by unlawful drug users violate the Second Amendment. Though primarily framed as a gun-rights case, the outcome could affect addiction policy, behavioral health treatment frameworks, and how substance use disorders intersect with constitutional protections.  

• Health Damages of Pesticides, Roundup: Monsanto Co. v. Durnell 
  The Court continues to face mounting litigation tied to claims that glyphosate-based pesticides such as Roundup cause cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The central legal issue is whether federal EPA approval and labeling requirements preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims. While the Court has not yet issued a sweeping merit ruling resolving the broader Roundup litigation, ongoing Supreme Court activity in these cases is being closely watched by pharmaceutical, agricultural and health-policy stakeholders because of the implications for federal preemption, toxic tort litigation and product liability standards involving chemicals and potential carcinogens.  

Keep an eye out in future AHPA Policy Briefs for any updates on these outstanding cases.