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, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, voting rights, LGBT “conversion therapy”, religious rights, capital punishment, and race. 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 called the Federal Reserve Act. The act included provisions to protect the central bank against political interference. It required governors to only be removed "for cause" if a president so deemed. However, the Federal Reserve Act does not define this term or establish procedures for removal. Trump claimed that Cook's firing was due to unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which Cook denied. Cook, who is still in her position for now, said that the allegations were a pretext to fire Cook over differences on monetary policy, as Trump pressures the Fed into cutting 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 and impact of Trump's sweeping Tariffs. This case has implications for the global economic system. It is a test of Trumps' powers. Conservative and liberal justices grilled the lawyer for the Trump administration on whether or not a 1977 law intended to be used during national emergencies gives Trump the authority he claims to have claimed in order to impose tariffs, or if the president has stepped into the power of Congress. Some conservative justices, however, also stressed that presidents have inherent authority when dealing with foreign nations. This suggests the court may be divided on the outcome. Lower courts ruled Trump had overstepped his bounds 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 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 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 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 any direct proof of racism. The lower court found a Louisiana electoral district map, which included two districts with a majority of Black people instead of one before, violated the Constitutional promise of equal protection. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

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 give an historic boost to president 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 a lower-court decision that said the Republican president exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term she was to serve expired in March. 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.

Transgender sports participation The conservative justices seemed ready to uphold the state laws that ban transgender athletes to female 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. 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'

The conservatives of the court during arguments on 7 October 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 counselor challenged the Colorado law under 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. The ruling 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 in public places, such as businesses. They appeared ready to expand the gun rights 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 judicial ruling that Hawaii's Democratic backed measure probably complies with U.S. Constitution Second Amendment rights to bear and keep arms. Hawaii's law demands that a property owner "expressly authorize" the bringing of a handgun on to 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 justices 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 BOARDS The court will listen to Mississippi's defense against a state law that Republicans are challenging. This law allows for a five-day period of grace to count mail-in votes received after Election Day. This case could lead to stricter voting laws in the United States. A lower court declared illegal the state law allowing mail-in ballots from certain voters to count if they are postmarked before Election Day, but received within five days of a federal 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" 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 revoked 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 The court heard an appeal from Cisco Systems, in which the company and Trump administration asked the justices to limit the reach of federal law used to hold companies liable for abuses committed overseas. Cisco appealed the 2023 ruling which gave new life to a lawsuit filed in 2011 accusing the California-based firm of developing technology that enabled China's government monitor and persecute Falun Gong members. 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 PREGNANCY COUNTER The court seems to be inclined to side with an operator of Christian faith based anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy center” in New Jersey, in a dispute arising from the state attorney's investigation as whether 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 prison officials in Louisiana after they shaved his head in violation of religious beliefs. The case was brought before the court in November 10 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 the statute in question did not allow for him to sue officials individually for monetary damages. The ruling is expected to be made by the end of 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.

WEEDKILLER CANCER CLAIM

The court will consider Bayer's request to limit lawsuits claiming the German 'pharmaceutical' and biotechnology firm's Roundup weedkiller is cancerous and possibly avoid billions in damages. Bayer appealed the ruling of a lower court in a case filed by a man claiming he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma following years of exposure Roundup. The lower court rejected Bayer’s argument that U.S. laws governing pesticides bar lawsuits based on claims made under state law. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

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 their day in the 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 others for contributing copyright infringement. 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)