Coming to the Court in October: Three Cases That Could Reshape Voting, Speech, and Power

Legal analyst Dina Doll breaks down three blockbuster Supreme Court cases you need to know about

By Dina Doll

Hey friends — fall is here, and with it, the Supreme Court returns to session. October 2025 brings three heavyweight arguments that could ripple far beyond the bench.
Here’s your brief rundown of these critical cases, including the “question presented” (the actual legal issue in front of the Court), the dates of the oral arguments, and my take.

---

Voting Rights Act Case: Louisiana v. Callais

Oral Argument Date: October 15th
Question Presented: Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8?

• Did the majority err in ruling S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny?

• Did the majority err in applying or rejecting the Gingles preconditions?

• Is this action non-justiciable?

This is a big one — in fact, the most consequential voting rights case in years. This case could mark the beginning of the end for the VRA’s race-based protections. The case was already argued once this spring, but instead of issuing a decision, the Court went silent — an unusual move. Justice Kavanaugh’s comments during argument hinted at a major shift: that the use of race in redistricting, even to remedy past discrimination, must eventually come to an end.

When the Supreme Court decided not to issue an opinion at the end of the term, Justice Thomas, never subtle about his intent to dismantle Section 2 of the VRA, openly criticized the Court’s decision to punt, implying he believed the majority was ready to rule — in his favor. By scheduling a second argument early in the term, the Court has given itself just enough runway to issue a decision before the 2026 midterms — potentially in time for states to redraw maps without being bound by the VRA’s current race-conscious requirements.

In short, this case could flip the script: what was once a tool to protect minority voters may soon be cast as unconstitutional racial discrimination under the 14th and 15th Amendments.

---

Chiles v. Salazar

Oral Argument Date: October 7th
Question Presented: Does a law that censors certain counselor-client conversations regulate conduct — or violate the Free Speech Clause?

Colorado’s “Minor Conversion Therapy Law” bans licensed counselors from engaging in therapy with minors aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, is asking the Court to recognize that this law suppresses speech — specifically, the idea that she should be allowed to offer counseling consistent with her views. She frames the prohibition not as a regulation of treatment, but as viewpoint censorship.

The Tenth Circuit rejected that framing: it said the law regulates conduct — the professional practice of conversion therapy — not pure speech. And because the regulation is aimed at conduct (with incidental speech wrapped in), they applied a deferential standard (rational basis), under which the law survived.

A lot rides on how the majority frames the boundary between “speech itself” and “speech as part of regulated professional conduct.” If the Court gives too much deference to state regulation of counseling, free speech claims in professional settings could shrink. I will also be keeping an ear out for any free speech comments the Justices make during oral argument that may pertain to Trump’s attacks on free speech.

---

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Oral Argument Date: October 8th
Question Presented: Can a federal candidate (or candidate plaintiffs) challenge state election laws under Article III standing when the law regulates “time, place, manner” aspects of federal elections?

Here’s what’s going on: Illinois allows mail ballots to arrive (and be counted) for up to 14 days after Election Day — so long as they were postmarked by the day of the election.

Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential elector nominees sued, arguing this “grace period” violates federal law that fixes Election Day. But lower courts dismissed the case, ruling that Bost (and the others) lack Article III standing — they failed to show a legally cognizable injury from the rule.

The Supreme Court granted cert on just the standing question — not the merits of whether the grace period is legal.

Trump’s mission is to discredit and overturn laws to make it harder — or impossible — for people to vote by mail. The oral arguments in this case will be a crucial chance to hear what the Justices think about mail-in ballots, as that will certainly be discussed even if it’s not the legal question at stake.

---

Final Thought

October 2025 could be a month where the Court redefines — or reaffirms — the boundaries of speech, democracy, and race. Whether you’re paying close attention or just tuning in later, these are arguments you’ll want to bookmark. I’ll be watching — and breaking this all down with Michael Popok on our Supreme Court-focused show Unprecedented on the Legal AF channel. Join us. And leave your thoughts below.