Week in Review: What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court has just concluded one of its most consequential terms in decades, handing down rulings that will reshape the future of parental rights, educational freedom, administrative authority, and more.

To unpack the Court’s most significant decisions, the Goldwater Institute hosted a live discussion featuring Vice President for Legal Affairs Timothy Sandefur and Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches. The conversation explored how recent decisions affect core constitutional protections and what lies ahead for individual rights in an era of rising federal power.

Whether you’re concerned about government overreach, the erosion of civil liberties, or the growing power of federal agencies, this discussion offered more than just analysis—the webinar offered a roadmap for what’s next in the fight to preserve American freedom.

Watch the webinar here.

Kelo v. New London, Twenty Years Later

Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most widely condemned rulings in modern constitutional history. In Kelo v. New London, the Court upheld the government’s power to seize private property not for infrastructure, but for private development under the guise of “economic development.” In effect, the Court rewrote the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” clause to mean “private use, with a public rationale.”

The consequences were immediate—and devastating. Homes were bulldozed in New London, Connecticut, to make way for a promised development that never came. Today, that land remains vacant, overgrown with weeds and trees. No jobs. No tax revenue. Just broken promises.

Read more here.

Goldwater Lawsuit Could End Compelled DEI Training Across Arizona Campuses

A constitutional challenge now before the Arizona Court of Appeals could deal a major blow to mandatory “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs at public universities statewide. Filed by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of Arizona State University Professor Owen Anderson, the case argues that ASU’s “Inclusive Communities” training violates state law and fundamental protections against compelled ideological speech.

At the heart of the case lies a critical question: Can a public university force faculty to participate in viewpoint-based training that assigns blame based on race, sex, or ethnicity?

Goldwater attorney Stacy Skankey, speaking at a recent free speech event hosted by ASU Alumni for Free Speech, explained that the case isn’t limited to ASU. “The real defendant here is the Arizona Board of Regents,” she said. A favorable ruling would set precedent across Arizona’s public university system, potentially striking down DEI mandates that mirror ASU’s contested program.

Read more here.