The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

During its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a number of important cases involving such issues as presidential powers and tariffs, gun rights, birthright citizenship laws, transgender sports, 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 TARIFS The Supreme Court ruled on February 20, a decision that has major implications for global economics, to?down' Trump's tariffs. Trump had imposed them under a law intended for national emergencies. The ruling, which was 6-3 in favor of the lower court decision, confirmed that Trump had exceeded his legal authority by using this 1977 law. The court ruled that Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs based on the law in question, the International Emergency Economic 'Powers Act (IEEPA). Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, not the President, according to the U.S. Constitution. Tariffs are at the heart of a global trade conflict that Trump started after he entered his second term in office. This war has alienated trading partner, affected financial markets, and created global economic uncertainty.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL Justices showed skepticism towards Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, in a case which 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 law included provisions meant to protect the central bank against political interference. Governors could only be removed from office by the president "for cause", though it does not define that term or establish procedures for 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 position for now, said that the allegations were a pretext used to fire Cook over differences of monetary policy, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Birthright Citizenship The court will hear arguments about the legality of Trump’s directive on April 1, which restricts birthright citizenship. This is a controversial part of Trump’s efforts to curb immigration, and would change the way a 19th-century constitutional provision has been understood for many years. 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 both the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal law codifying the birthright citizenship rights.

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 found that the Louisiana electoral map, which divided the six U.S. House of Representatives districts into two districts with a majority of Black people instead of one district previously, violated the Constitution’s promise of equality 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 the lower court's ruling that the Republican President exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before her term was due to end 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 sports teams despite escalating national efforts 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' in both states as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and a federal antidiscrimination act. 25 other states also have laws similar to this one. 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 court's conservatives 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. The law was challenged by a Christian licensed counselor under the First Amendment's protections from government?abridgment free speech. 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 conservatives expressed skepticism about a Hawaii gun law which restricts handguns from being carried on public property, such as businesses. They appeared ready to expand the right to carry guns again. On January 20, the court heard arguments in an appeal by opponents of the law, backed by Trump's administration, regarding a judicial decision that Hawaii's Democratic backed measure is likely compliant with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. 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 The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case on March 2, involving a dual American/Pakistani national in Texas, to defend the Trump Administration's bid for a federal gun law that 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 limited how much money political parties could spend on 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 On March 23, the court will hear arguments as Mississippi defends its state law that allows mail-in votes received after Election Day, to be counted. This case could lead to stricter voting laws in other states. A lower court declared illegal a state law allowing mail-in ballots received by certain voters that were stamped on or before Election Day, but not until five business days following a federal election.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING: The court will hear arguments from the Trump administration on March 24, as it defends its authority to limit asylum processing at the ports of entry along 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’s administration indicated that it may consider resuming.

Human Rights Abuses Abroad The court heard an appeal from Cisco Systems, in which the company and Trump administration asked the justices for a limit on the federal law used to hold corporations liable for abuses of human rights committed abroad. 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 order to bring international human rights cases. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

CRISIS PRINCIPAL 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 appears to be inclined to side with the Christian faith-based "crisis pregnancies centers" that are anti-abortion. 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 INMATES 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 belief. 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 June.

INMATE ON DEATH ROW The court heard arguments on December 10, in an attempt by Alabama officials, to pursue the execution a convict convicted of a murder in 1997 after a lower judge found him intellectually disabled. The Republican-led state has appealed a lower court ruling that Joseph Clifton Smith was intellectually handicapped based on 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 biotechnology and pharmaceutical company's Roundup weedkiller 'causes cancer' and possibly avoid billions of dollar in damages. Bayer appealed the ruling of a lower court in a case filed by a man claiming he was diagnosed as having non-Hodgkin lymphoma following years of exposure Roundup. The lower court rejected Bayer’s argument that U.S. pesticide law bars lawsuits based on claims made under state laws. 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)