Groups linked to the conservative Project 2025 were highly influential in this year’s Supreme Court decisions, with the majority of rulings favoring arguments aligned with their agenda.
During this Supreme Court term, organizations associated with Project 2025—a controversial conservative policy agenda created by the Heritage Foundation—played a significant role. These groups found favor in multiple pivotal cases, with the court siding with their perspectives more often than not. Nevertheless, setbacks did occur as the court also ruled against some cases directly linked to these organizations.
Project 2025 was primarily championed by the Heritage Foundation but included a network of over 100 conservative organizations on its advisory board. Designed ahead of the 2024 election, this agenda aimed to restructure the executive branch under a potential conservative president.
In a breakdown of the term’s Supreme Court cases, approximately 30 organizations tied to Project 2025 filed amicus briefs, engaging in a total of 12 critical cases decided between October 2024 and June. This analysis indicates that these groups were involved in four key cases through direct representation: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, managed by Alliance Defending Freedom; Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, concerning the Affordable Care Act, managed by America First Legal; and FCC v. Consumers Research, involving challenges to regulations by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Beyond these, a variety of organizations, along with Project 2025-linked groups, submitted amicus briefs nearly 60 times in major court cases this term. The Supreme Court aligned with the interests of these groups in eight of the 12 major cases reviewed by Forbes. These decisions included allowing restrictions on transgender health care and Planned Parenthood funding, expanding religious tax exemptions, maintaining Texas’ age verification law, dismissing Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun-makers, and upholding the federal TikTok ban.
However, the justices rejected cases concerning religious charter schools, the Affordable Care Act, the FCC, and federal rules on ghost guns, indicating limitations in Project 2025’s judicial influence.
Alliance Defending Freedom emerged as the group with the highest number of filings and a substantial Supreme Court presence. In addition to being a party in two cases, it also filed multiple amicus briefs and saw its members drafting briefs on behalf of other similarly aligned organizations.
The Heritage Foundation, the leading entity behind Project 2025, did not engage in any direct Supreme Court cases. Nevertheless, they expressed approval of several court rulings this term, particularly those affecting transgender healthcare, President Trump’s citizenship case, and decisions on educational content and Planned Parenthood funding.
Controversy surrounded Project 2025 as several groups listed as advisory board members distanced themselves, citing reasons that ranged from unintentional registration to political alignment discrepancies. Various organizations, such as Americans United for Life, withdrew their association citing nonpartisanship.
While Project 2025 maintains a primarily executive branch focus, its agenda aligns with certain Supreme Court decisions, especially around topics like gender-affirming care bans, parental rights in education, and opposition to Planned Parenthood funding. These overlaps highlight the broader conservative policy shifts that reflect the group’s proposed policies.
Project 2025’s origins trace back to a concerted effort for potential GOP governance, featuring a database of potential White House team members and a 900-page policy blueprint. The plan proposes comprehensive reforms across federal agencies to concentrate power in the presidency. Despite being disavowed by President Trump prior to the 2024 election, the overlap in personnel and policy between Trump’s second term and Project 2025’s proposals has continued, aligning with the organization’s vision as described by former project head Paul Dans.
According to Forbes, this year’s Supreme Court decisions have spotlighted Project 2025’s broader influence within conservative policy-making circles, illustrating a complex political ecosystem shaped by shared goals among right-leaning entities.
Source: Original article