The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

During its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a number of important cases involving such issues as presidential powers and tariffs, gun rights, race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, voting rights, LGBT “conversion therapy”, religious rights, capital punishment, and more. The term began in October, and will run through June. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases involving challenges against President Donald Trump's policy.

TRUMP TARIFFS During arguments on 5 November, the justices raised questions about the legality and impact of Trump’s sweeping tariffs. This case has implications for the global economic system. It is a test of Trump’s power. Conservative and liberal justices questioned the lawyer for Trump's administration on whether or not a 1977 law intended to be used during national emergencies had given Trump the authority he claimed in order to impose tariffs, or if the president had stepped into the powers of Congress. Some conservative justices also emphasized the inherent authority that presidents have when dealing with foreign nations, suggesting the court may be divided on the case's outcome. Lower courts ruled Trump had overreached by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to impose tariffs. This was challenged by 12 U.S. States and various businesses. The ruling is expected to be made by the end of June.

Birthright Citizenship The court has agreed to rule on the legality Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship. This is a controversial part of Trump’s efforts to curb immigration, and would change the way a 19th-century constitutional provision was long understood. The lower court blocked Trump’s executive order, which instructed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize citizenship for children born in the U.S. when neither parent was an American citizen or a legal permanent resident (also known as a "green-card" holder). The court found that Trump's directive violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal law codifying the birthright citizenship rights. This ruling was made in response to a class action lawsuit filed by parents and their children who felt threatened by this directive. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRICTS The conservative justices of the court signaled on October 15, their willingness to undermine another key section in the Voting Right Act, the 1965 landmark law enacted to prevent racial bias in voting. This was during arguments in a case involving Louisiana's electoral districts. The case centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting maps that dilute the power of minorities without proof of racism. The lower court ruled that the Louisiana electoral map, which divided the six U.S. House of Representatives district into two districts with a majority of Black people instead of one before, violated the Constitutional promise of equal treatment. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL On January 21, the justices will hear arguments about Trump's bid to remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. This is the first time a president has attempted to fire a Fed officer, as he questions the independence of the central bank. The court refused to decide immediately on a Justice Department's request to put a judge’s order temporarily blocking Trump from removing Cook. Congress created the Fed in 1913 and passed the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions that shielded the central bank from political interference. The law required governors to only be removed "for cause" by the president, though it did not define this term or establish procedures for removal.

Federal Trade Commission Firing The conservative justices of the court have signaled that they will uphold Trump's legality in firing a Federal Trade Commission Member and also give a historical boost to presidential powers while also threatening a 90-year old legal precedent. On December 8, the court heard arguments in the Justice Department appeal of the lower court's ruling that the Republican President exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term she was due to finish. The conservative justices seemed sympathetic to the Trump Administration's argument that tenure protections granted by Congress to heads of independent agencies illegally infringed on presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution. Trump was allowed to remove Slaughter until the case concluded. The court is expected to make a decision by the end June.

LGBT 'CONVERSION THERAPEUTY'

The conservatives on the court appeared to be ready to support a challenge to a Colorado statute that prohibits psychotherapists from performing "conversion therapy", which aims to change minors' sexual orientation or gender identities. A Christian licensed counselor challenged this law under First Amendment protections from government abridgment. Colorado said that it regulates professional conduct and not speech and has the legal right to prohibit a healthcare practice they deem unsafe and ineffective. A lower court upheld this law. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION On January 13, the court will hear Idaho and West Virginia's bid to enforce their state laws that ban transgender athletes in female sports teams within public schools. This is another civil rights challenge against Republican-backed "restrictions" on transgender individuals. Idaho and West Virginia appealed lower court decisions siding with transgender plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued the laws discriminate based sex or transgender status, in violation of Title IX civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

HAWAII GUNS LAW On January 20, the justices will hear a challenge against a Hawaii Law that restricts the carrying of handguns in public places, such as businesses. This gives the court an opportunity to expand gun rights. Three Hawaii residents who hold concealed carry licenses, and a gun rights group based in Honolulu appealed the lower court's ruling that Hawaii's measure is likely to comply with the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment right of keep and bear arms. Hawaii's concealed carry law requires that licensees obtain the owner's permission before bringing their handguns onto public property.

Drug Users and Guns On March 2, the justices will hear arguments from the Trump administration in a Texas case that involves a dual American/Pakistani national to defend a federal gun law which prohibits users of illegal drugs. Hunter Biden, son of former president Joe Biden, was charged under this law in 2023. The Justice Department appealed a lower court ruling which found that the gun restrictions were in violation of the Second Amendment rights to "keep and carry arms" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Gun Control Act, which was passed in 1968, prohibited gun ownership by drug users.

CAMPAIGN FUNDING The court heard arguments in December 9 on a Republican-led attempt to overturn federal limits on spending by parties and candidates coordinated with each other in a case that involved Vice President JDVance. The conservative justices seemed to be sympathetic towards the challenge. However, the three liberal members of the court appeared inclined to maintain the spending limits. The debate centers around whether federal limits on campaign spending coordinated with candidates' input violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. Vance and Republican challengers have appealed the ruling of a lower court that upheld restrictions regarding the amount of money political parties can spend in campaigns, with input from candidates who they support. This type of spending is called coordinated party expenses. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

MAIL-IN-BALLOTS The Mississippi defense will be heard in the court. Republicans have challenged a Mississippi state law that allows a five-day grace for mail-in votes received after Election Day. This case could lead to stricter voting laws across the United States. A lower court declared illegal the state's law that allows mail-in votes sent by certain voters be counted even if they are postmarked before Election Day, but arrive up to five days after an election. Arguments in this case have not been scheduled.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING: The court agreed to hear Trump's administration's defense that the U.S. government has the authority to limit asylum processing at the ports of entry on the U.S. - Mexico border. The Trump administration appealed the lower court's ruling that the "metering policy" was illegal. This allowed U.S. Immigration officials to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their claims at the border. Former President Joe Biden rescinded the policy, but Trump has said that he would be open to resuming its use. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court seems to be inclined to side with Christian faith-based antiabortion crisis pregnancy centers in New Jersey, in a dispute arising from an investigation by the state attorney general into whether or not these facilities engages in deceptive practice. During the December 2 arguments, a large majority of the Justices appeared to be inclined to revive a lawsuit filed by First Choice Women's Resource Centers against Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena 2023 seeking information about the organization's doctors and donors. First Choice's facilities are designed to discourage women from getting abortions. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

RASTAFARIAN INMATE The conservative justices seemed inclined to reject the Rastafarian inmate's attempt to sue Louisiana state prison officials after they shaved his head in violation of religious beliefs. On November 10, the case was argued in front of the court under a federal statute protecting incarcerated persons from religious discrimination. Plaintiff Damon Landor whose religion demands that he let his hair grow appealed the decision of a lower court to dismiss his lawsuit, because they found that the statute in question did not allow him?to sue individual officials for financial damages. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

DEATH ROW INMATE The court heard arguments in December in an attempt by Alabama officials in order to pursue the execution for an inmate who was convicted of a murder in 1997 after a lower judge found him intellectually disabled, and therefore ineligible to receive the death penalty. The Republican-led state has appealed a lower court ruling that Joseph Clifton Smith was intellectually disabled based upon his intelligence quotient (IQ), test scores, and expert testimony. In a 2002 Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that executing a person intellectually challenged violated the Eighth Amendment of U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end June.

COX COPYRIGHT DISSERT The court heard arguments in December in an attempt by Cox Communications, a provider of internet services, to avoid financial responsibility in a major copyright lawsuit brought by record labels who accused Cox of allowing its customers to piracy thousands of songs. Justices appeared to be skeptical about Cox's claim that mere knowledge of user piracy was not enough for it to be held liable for copyright violations. A lower court ordered that a new trial be held to determine the amount of money Cox owes Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group Universal Music Group, and other labels in relation to contributory copyright violations. Cox, which is the largest division of privately-owned Cox Enterprises said that the retrial may result in a verdict of up to $1.5 billion against it. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

(source: Reuters)