The Supreme Court's top cases

In the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, there are cases that involve guns, gender affirming medical care for minors who identify as transgender, online pornography and religious rights, TikTok and preventive healthcare. There are also cases that concern funding Planned Parenthood, job discrimination and federal regulation powers over nuclear waste storage, vape products and voting rights.

Take a look below at some of those cases that have already been argued, decided or are still awaiting a decision by the justices.

'GHOST GUN' On March 26, the court upheld a federal rule targeting "ghost guns", which are largely untraceable, imposed by former Democratic President Joe Biden in an effort to crackdown on the proliferation of firearms used in crimes across the country. The ruling by 7-2 overturned the lower court decision that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority when it issued the 2022 rule aimed at parts and kits of ghost guns. The court determined that the regulation was in line with the 1968 federal Gun Control Act.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS During arguments on 4 December, the court's conservative judges indicated that they were willing to uphold Tennessee's Republican-backed ban on gender affirming medical care for minors who are transgender. This case could have a significant impact on other state laws that target transgender individuals. Biden's Administration appealed the decision of a lower court upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical treatment, including hormones and surgery for minors suffering from gender dysphoria. This refers to the distress caused by the incongruity of a person’s gender identity with the sex assigned to them at birth. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

MEXICO GUN LAWSUIT On March 4, the justices showed sympathy for a request by two American firearms companies to dismiss the Mexican government’s lawsuit accusing the companies of aiding the illegal trafficking of guns to drug cartels, and fueling the gun violence in Mexico's southern neighbor. The justices heard arguments from Smith & Wesson, a firearms manufacturer and distributor of Interstate Arms in their appeal against a lower-court ruling allowing the lawsuit on the basis that Mexico had plausibly alleged the companies aided and facilitated illegal gun sales and harmed its government. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

U.S. TIKTOK BAN On January 17, the justices upheld a federal law that would ban TikTok from the United States if the Chinese parent company ByteDance failed to sell the short video app within a time limit set by Congress. The Justices ruled, 9-0, that the law passed by Congress and signed by Biden last year did not violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. The justices upheld a lower court decision that upheld the measure. Biden's replacement, Republican President Donald Trump chose not to enforce it and instead gave both parties a chance to work out a compromise.

Online Pornography The Justices heard arguments about whether the First Amendment protects against government interference in speech when a Texas law requires that pornographic sites verify users' ages to limit access by minors. The justices voiced concerns over the availability and accessibility of online pornography, but also expressed concern about burdens placed on adults who wish to view constitutionally-protected material. A trade group representing the adult entertainment industry has appealed the decision of a lower court that upheld the Republican-led State's age verification mandate. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION On February 26, the court heard arguments in a case where a woman claimed that she was denied a job promotion and demoted because of her heterosexuality by a state government agency in Ohio. The justices seemed to favor making it easier for those from "majority backgrounds" to bring workplace discrimination cases, such as straight or white people. Marlean Amees, the plaintiff, said that she worked with a homosexual supervisor when, in 2019, she was demoted and passed over for promotion to a woman gay. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

RELIGIOUS SCHOOL The court will hear a case that tests the separation between church and state. Two Catholic dioceses are attempting to establish the first taxpayer-funded charter school in Oklahoma. St. Isidore Catholic Virtual School was shut down by a lower court, which ruled that the funding arrangement for the school violated First Amendment restrictions on government endorsements of religion. Arguments will be held on April 30.

RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION In a landmark religious rights case, the justices seemed to be sympathetic towards a request by an arm of Wisconsin's Catholic diocese for a religious exemption. On March 31, the court heard arguments in an appeal filed by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit corporation that operates as the social ministry branch of the Catholic Diocese of Superior. The bureau also represents four other entities. The court is expected to rule by the end June.

LGBT SCHOOL BIBLES The court accepted a request from religious parents who wanted to prevent their children from attending classes in a Maryland district public school when LGBT stories are read. This is yet another case that involves the intersection of religion and LGBT rights. Parents of children attending Montgomery County Public Schools filed an appeal after lower courts refused a plaintiff's request for a preliminary order ordering the district not to read these books. Arguments will be held on April 22.

OBAMACARE PREVENTIVE MANDATE The Court will decide on the legality a key element of the Affordable Health Care Act, which gives a taskforce established under the Obamacare healthcare law the power to demand that insurers provide preventive medical services without cost to the patient. The court heard an appeal from the Biden administration against a lower-court ruling which sided with a Christian group of businesses that objected to the fact that their employee health plans covered HIV-preventing medications and had argued the task force structure violated U.S. Constitution. Arguments will be held on April 21.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FINANCE The court heard arguments in South Carolina on April 2, in an attempt to stop public funding for Planned Parenthood. This case could support Republican-led efforts to deny the provider of reproductive healthcare and abortions public funds. South Carolina was supported by the conservative justices of the court. A lower court blocked the Republican-run state from cutting funding to the regional affiliate of Planned Parenthood under the Medicaid health insurance system. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE On March 5, the justices heard arguments over whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had the authority to issue licenses for certain nuclear waste facilities, amid objections raised by the state Texas and oil industry interests. The U.S. Government and a company awarded a license to operate an operation in western Texas by the NRC appealed the ruling of a lower court declaring that the storage arrangement was illegal. The NRC regulates nuclear energy in the United States. The NRC is expected to make a decision by the end June.

FLAVORED vapor products The Court on April 2, largely backed up the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in its refusal to allow two ecigarette companies to sell flavored vapor products, which regulators consider a risk to health for youths. The court threw out the lower court decision that found the FDA violated a federal law known as the Administrative Procedure Act by rejecting the applications of the companies Triton Distribution & Vapetasia to sell these nicotine containing products.

EPA AUTHORITY On March 4, the court handed a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency with a ruling of 5-4. The case involved a wastewater treatment plant owned by San Francisco. This could make it more difficult for regulators and water quality inspectors to monitor pollution. The court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority in a law against pollution by putting vague restrictions on a permit for the facility which discharges into the Pacific Ocean. In recent years, the court has limited the EPA’s power as part of a number of rulings that have curbed the federal regulatory agencies’ powers.

TAILPIPE Emissions A major case that tests the power of the Democratic-governed California to combat greenhouse gases is a challenge by fuel producers against California's standards on vehicle emissions and electric vehicles under a federal law on air pollution. Valero Energy, along with fuel industry groups, appealed the lower court's decision to reject their challenge against a Biden administration decision to let California set its own regulation. Arguments will be held on April 23.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE FUND The Justices seemed sympathetic to the Federal Communications Commission’s defense of its multi-billion-dollar effort to expand access to broadband internet and phone services for low-income Americans, rural Americans and others. On March 26, the court heard arguments in the appeal of the FCC, a coalition interest groups and telecommunications companies against a lower court decision which found that Congress had violated the Constitution by vested legislative authority with Congress. The court is expected to rule by the end June.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL MAP On March 24, the justices heard arguments in a bid to preserve a Louisiana electoral map which increased the number of Black-majority districts in the state. This was in response to a legal challenge brought by a group voters who identified themselves as "non African American". Three federal judges determined that the map of Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives district - which now has two Black-majority areas, instead of one - violated the Constitutional promise of equal treatment. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Death Penalty Case On February 25, the court threw away Richard Glossip’s conviction in Oklahoma for a murder-for hire plot that took place in 1997 and gave him a fresh trial. In a 5-3 decision, the justices concluded that prosecutors had violated their constitutional obligation to correct false testimony from their star witness. The justices reversed the lower court decision which had upheld Glossip’s conviction. They also allowed his planned death to proceed despite Glossip’s claim that prosecutors had wrongly withheld information that could have helped his defense. (Compiled by Andrew Chung and John Kruzel; edited by Will Dunham.)

(source: Reuters)