The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

The U.S. Supreme Court has a number of important cases on its docket during the current term. These include issues like presidential powers, tariffs and birthright citizenship. Other topics are race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, voting rights, LGBT “conversion therapy”, religious rights and capital penalty. The term began in October, and will run through June. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases in several cases that challenge President Donald Trump's policy.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL Justices expressed skepticism about Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that could threaten the independence of the central bank. The justices said they would not grant Trump's request for a judge to overturn a decision that prevented him from firing Cook immediately while her legal case played out. Congress created the Fed by passing a law, the Federal Reserve Act, that contained provisions to protect the central bank against political interference. The law stipulated that governors could only be fired "for cause" by the president, though it did not define this term or establish procedures for its removal. Trump claimed that Cook's firing was due to unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. Cook, who is still in her post, said that the allegations were a pretext for firing her because of monetary policy disagreements, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

TRUMP TARIFFS During arguments on the 5th of November, the justices raised questions about the legality Trump's sweeping Tariffs. This case?with implications for global economic?marks a major test to Trump's power. Both 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 to impose a tariff, or if the president infringed upon the powers of Congress. Some conservative justices emphasized the inherent power of presidents when dealing with foreign nations, indicating that the court may be divided on the 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 June.

Birthright Citizenship The court 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 ruled against Trump's executive orders that instructed U.S. agencies to not 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 was 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 DISTRECTS The conservative justices of the court signaled on October 15, their willingness to undermine another key section in the Voting Right Act, the landmark 1965 legislation enacted by Congress in order to prevent racial bias in voting. This was during the arguments in a significant?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 found 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 Constitution promise of equal treatment. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Federal Trade Commission Firing The conservative justices of the court have indicated that they will uphold Trump's legality in firing a Federal Trade Commission Member and also give a "historic boost" to presidential power, while also putting at risk 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 independent agency heads unlawfully 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.

TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTIcipation The conservative justices seemed ready to uphold the state laws that ban transgender athletes to female sports teams, amid an escalating nationwide effort to restrict transgender rights. On January 13, the court heard arguments from Idaho and West Virginia in appeals of lower court decisions siding with transgender student who challenged the bans as being in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and a federal antidiscrimination act. 25 other states also have laws similar to Idaho's. The conservative justices expressed concerns over imposing a uniform law on the whole country, amid a sharp disagreement and uncertainty about whether medications such as puberty-blocking hormones or gender affirming hormones remove male physiological advantages in sport. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

LGBT 'CONVERSION THERAPEUTY'

During arguments on October 7, the conservatives of 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 counsellor challenged the law based on the First Amendment's protections from government abridgment. Colorado said that it regulates professional conduct and not speech and has the legal power to prohibit a healthcare practice they deem unsafe and ineffective. A lower court upheld this law. A decision is expected to be made by the end June.

HAWAII GUNS LAW The conservative Justices expressed skepticism about a Hawaii gun law which restricts the carry of handguns on private property that is open to the public, as are most businesses. They appeared ready to expand the right to own a firearm again. On January 20, the court heard arguments in an appeal filed by opponents of the law, backed by Trump's administration. The challengers were appealing a ruling by a judge that Hawaii's Democratic backed measure probably complied with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right. Hawaii's law demands that a property owner "expressly authorize" the bringing of a handgun on private property. Four other states in the United States have laws similar to Hawaii's. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

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-FINANCE On December 9, the court heard arguments in a Republican led bid to overturn federal spending limits by political parties coordinated with candidates. The case 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 of June.

MAIL-IN-BALLOTS The Mississippi state court will hear the defense of a law that Republicans are challenging. This law allows for a five-day period to count mail-in votes received after Election Day. This case could lead to stricter voting laws in other states. A lower court declared illegal a state law that allows mail-in votes sent by certain voters be counted even if the postmark was made on or before Election Day, but they are received up to 5 business days after an election. Arguments in this case have not been scheduled.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING - The court accepted to hear the Trump Administration's defense to the U.S. Government's authority to restrict the processing of asylum requests at ports of entry on the U.S. - Mexico border. The Trump administration appealed the lower court's ruling that the "metering policy" - which allowed U.S. Immigration officials to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their claims at the border - violated federal laws. 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.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD - The Court heard an appeal from Cisco Systems, in which both the company and Trump administration asked the court to limit the scope of a federal statute that was used to hold companies liable for abuses committed by corporations abroad. Cisco appealed the 2023 ruling which gave new life to a lawsuit filed in 2011 accusing the California-based firm of developing technology allowing China's government surveillance and persecution of members of the FalunGong spiritual movement. The Alien Tort Statute was the basis of the lawsuit. This 1789 law had lain dormant in U.S. courtrooms for almost two centuries, before attorneys began to use it in the 1980s in international human rights cases. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

CRISIS PRGNANCY CENTERS In a dispute arising from an investigation by the New Jersey Attorney General into whether or not these facilities engaged in deceptive practice, the court seems to be inclined to side with the Christian faith-based "crisis pregnancies centers" that are anti-abortion. During the December 2 arguments, a'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 him bald, in violation of religious beliefs. The case was argued in front of the court on 10 November under a federal statute protecting incarcerated persons from religious discrimination. Plaintiff Damon Landor's religion requires that he let his hair grow. He appealed the decision of a lower court to dismiss his lawsuit, because they found that he could not sue officials individually for monetary damages under the statute in question. 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. An inmate who was convicted of a murder in 1997 had been found to be intellectually handicapped and therefore ineligible for 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.

FCC FINES FOR WIRELESS CARRIER The Justices will hear the dispute over fines levied by the Federal Communications Commission against major U.S. carriers who shared customer location data with other companies without their consent. This is the latest case that has reached the Supreme Court challenging the authority of an American regulatory agency. The case concerns the FCC's efforts to impose tens-of-millions-of-dollars in fines on carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T before they had a chance in court. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

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)