Welcome to the Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2025, Brew. 

By: Lara Bonatesta

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Five Supreme Court rulings that changed the balance of power between states and the federal government
2. Republican supermajority at stake in Aug. 26 Iowa state Senate District 1 special election
3. On The Ballot takes an early look at 2026 Secretary of State elections

Five Supreme Court rulings that changed the balance of power between states and the federal government 

Daily Brew readers may recall that last month, we examined several recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the administrative state. Today, we’re reviewing the Court’s decisions from the last term on a different topic: federalism. 

Federalism in the U.S. is a system of government in which power is shared and divided between the federal government and state governments. This structure allows both levels of government to share authority and responsibilities, with specific powers granted to each in the U.S. Constitution.

During the Supreme Court’s most recent term, which ended on June 27, the Court issued five decisions on federalism. The rulings focused on procedural rules, addressing disputes over the proper use of judicial remedies, the scope of federal agencies’ power, and how states can challenge federal actions. 

Here’s a look at the Court’s key federalism-related decisions, organized by theme:

Judicial remedies and state-led litigation

This category focuses on cases that directly address the power of federal courts to issue remedies.

• In Trump v. CASA, Inc. (6-3), the Court ruled that federal district courts likely exceeded their authority when they issued nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump’s (R) executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The decision restrains district courts from issuing nationwide rulings that block or bind federal action. The decision preserved a role for states and other plaintiffs to challenge federal actions through other legal means—such as class-action lawsuits.

Standing and administrative process

This category includes cases where the Supreme Court’s ruling hinged on whether parties followed the correct legal and administrative procedures.

• In Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (6-3), the Court ruled that Texas lacked legal standing to sue because it had not formally intervened in the agency’s licensing process. This ruling makes it more difficult for states to challenge federal regulatory actions after the fact if they fail to follow proper procedures.
• In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (5-4), the Court limited the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act. The ruling held that the EPA cannot impose broad end-result requirements on states or localities but must determine the steps the jurisdictions must take to meet water quality standards. End-result requirements are defined as “permit provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing but instead make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants.” This decision reflects a narrower interpretation of delegated authority, affirming that agencies must adhere to congressional limits. 

Venues for legal challenges

This category covers rulings on which courts have jurisdiction over state challenges to federal agency actions.

• In Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (8-0), the justices sided with Oklahoma and other challengers, holding that the EPA’s disapprovals of Oklahoma’s and Utah’s Good Neighbor state implementation plans were locally or regionally applicable actions.  The Court ruled that the case should have been reviewed in a regional circuit rather than the D.C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act. The ruling restricts where states and stakeholders may bring legal challenges to EPA decisions, potentially reducing centralized review in the D.C. Circuit.

Constitutional rights and standards of review

This category includes cases where the Supreme Court evaluated the constitutionality of a law by clarifying which standard of review applies. 

• In United States v. Skrmetti (6-3), the Supreme Court allowed a Tennessee law to take effect prohibiting all medical treatments intended either to help “a minor identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”
  • The Court ruled that the law did not trigger a heightened level of judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the justices applied rational basis review, the most deferential standard of constitutional review.
    • Under rational basis review, a law is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This standard is typically used when the law does not involve a fundamental right (such as free speech or voting) or target a suspect class (such as race or national origin).
    • Heightened—or intermediate—scrutiny requires the government to show that a law serves an important government interest and does so in a way that is substantially related to achieving that interest. Courts apply heightened scrutiny when laws discriminate against or affect certain protected classes, such as based on sex.
  • In Skrmetti, the Court determined that Tennessee’s law fell into the first category, applying rational basis review. The Court decided that the law satisfied this constitutional test because the state could point to legitimate policy interests in regulating medical treatments for minors.

The Supreme Court issued 67 opinions during its most recent term. Click here to learn more. To learn more about the Supreme Court’s recent term and other cases that the Supreme Court may hear over the summer, you can also listen to our recent episode of On The Ballot featuring Zachary Shemtob, Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog.

Republican supermajority at stake in Aug. 26 Iowa state Senate District 1 special election

An  Aug. 26  special election for Iowa state Senate District 1 will determine whether Republicans maintain their two-thirds supermajority in the chamber, or if Democrats will hold more than a third of the seats for the first time since 2020. 

Republicans have a 33-16 majority in the Iowa Senate with one vacancy. Republicans also have a majority in the Iowa General Assembly, and Gov. Kim Reynolds is a Republican, meaning Iowa has a Republican trifecta.

In Iowa, the governor appoints department and agency heads, and other non-elected state officials. The governor’s appointments are generally subject to Senate approval and require a two-thirds majority vote to be confirmed. Among the appointed positions requiring Senate approval are the Commissioner of Insurance, Director of Education, Director of Natural Resources, and the Iowa Utilities Board. Click here to learn more about Iowa’s state executives.

Catelin Drey (D) and Christopher Prosch (R) are running. The previous incumbent, Rocky De Witt (R), died on June 25.

Drey is a marketing executive and founder of the group Moms for Iowa, which describes itself as a grassroots organization focused on “curbing gun violence and championing women’s reproductive rights.” Drey said her top priority is to increase state education funding in the district. Other priorities listed on Drey’s campaign website include “Affordable, accessible childcare,” “Bodily Autonomy,” and “Economic mobility.”

Prosch is the owner of a media consulting firm in Sioux City. On his campaign website, Prosch describes himself as “a principled, common sense conservative” who “believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the traditional family values that have always been the bedrock of our community.” Prosch said his top priority is to eliminate the state income tax. Other priorities listed on his campaign website include “Securing the Border & Ending Illegal Immigration,” “Empowering Parents & Prioritizing Education,” and “Protecting the Unborn.”

This will be the fourth special state legislative election in Iowa this year.

According to The Downballot’s David Nir and Jeff Singer, “The district has bounced back and forth in recent years, with Democrats flipping it in 2018 only to give it right back four years later. In 2024, it supported Donald Trump by a 55-44 margin, but Democrats are hopeful about their chances given their strong overperformances in three other Iowa special elections this year.”

The other three special state legislative elections in Iowa this year were in Senate District 35, House District 78, and House District 100. Democrats gained one seat in the Senate after they won in Senate District 35 and retained control in House District 78. Republicans retained control in House District 100.

Eighty-three special state legislative elections in 22 states have been scheduled so far this year. Between 2011 and 2024, an average of 70 special elections took place each year.

Click here to learn more about the special election in Iowa.

On The Ballot takes an early look at 2026 Secretary of State elections

In this week’s new episode of On The Ballot, Louis Jacobson, senior columnist for Sabato’s Crystal Ball, joins host Norm Leahy to discuss the 2026 elections for secretaries of state, their competitiveness, and why they matter.

There are 26 secretary of state offices on the ballot in 2026. 

While many secretaries of state’s duties are generally administrative, they vary by state. Many secretaries of state are tasked with keeping state records, from registering businesses to recording the official acts of the governor. Some are also their state’s chief election official, administering state elections and maintaining official election results. Other common duties include commissioning and regulating notaries public, keeping the official state seal, and certification of official documents. 

Forty-seven states have a secretary of state. The position does not exist in Alaska, Hawaii, or Utah. In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the office is called the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 

Thirty-five states elect their secretaries of state. In the other 12, either the governor or the state legislature appoints the secretary of state. 

Currently, Republicans hold 26 secretary of state offices and Democrats hold the other 21.

Click here to read more about secretary of state elections in 2026.

Subscribe to On the Ballot on YouTube or your preferred podcast app, or click here to listen.