The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

The U.S. Supreme Court has been deciding on a number of important cases in its 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, capital punishment, etc. The term began in October, and will run through June. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases that challenge President Donald Trump's policy.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP On April 1, the?court expressed skepticism about the legality Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship within the United States. Justices asked the lawyer for the Trump administration questions regarding the legal validity and practical implications of Trump's order. The lower court blocked Trump’s order which 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 called "green card") holder. The court found that Trump's policy was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and federal laws codifying birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely rule by the end June.

TRUMP'S TARIFFS On February 20, the justices struck down Trump's sweeping trade tariffs, which he imposed under a law intended to be used in times of national emergency. This ruling has major implications for global economics. The ruling, which was 6-3 in favor of the lower court, confirmed that Trump had exceeded his authority by using this 1977 law. The court ruled that Trump's claim to have the authority to impose tariffs was not supported by the IEEPA, the 1977 law in question. Congress and not the President has the authority to impose taxes and tariffs, according to the U.S. Constitution. Tariffs are at the heart of a global trade conflict that Trump started after his second term in office. This has alienated trading partner, affected financial markets, and created global economic uncertainty.

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 is being resolved. Congress created the Fed by passing a law, the Federal Reserve Act, that contained provisions designed to protect the central bank against political interference. The law stipulated that governors could only be removed "for cause" by the president, though it 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 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.

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, a landmark 1965 law enacted to prevent racial bias in voting. This was during 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 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.

PROTECTED STATUS?IMMIGRANTS On April 29, the court will hear arguments over the legality the Trump administration’s decision to revoke the temporary legal protections of more than 350,000 Haitians, and approximately 6,100 Syrians who live in the United States. This is a top priority for President Trump as he pursues his policy of mass deportations. The court upheld two judicial orders which temporarily stopped the administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian citizens. The Department of Homeland Security under Trump has taken steps to remove TPS for a dozen or so countries. People whose country of origin has suffered a natural catastrophe, armed conflict, or another extraordinary event are eligible for the protections.

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 decision by a lower court that said the Republican president overstepped his authority in dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term she was to serve expired. 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. The court allowed Trump to remove Slaughter until the case was resolved. The court is expected to make a ruling 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 courts' decisions siding with transgender student who challenged the bans imposed in both states as violating U.S. Constitution. 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 the sharp disagreements and uncertainty surrounding whether medications such as puberty-blocking hormones or gender affirming hormones remove male physiological advantages in sports. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

LGBT 'CONVERSION THERAPEUTY'

On March 31, the court rejected a Democratic-backed Colorado Law that prohibited psychotherapists from using “conversion” talk therapy to change a LGBT minor's gender identity or sexual orientation. The 8-1 decision sided with the Christian licensed counselor and deemed that the law was an intrusion into free speech rights. The court rejected Colorado’s argument that the law only protected speech, but regulated professional conduct. The court reversed a lower-court decision which had upheld a law brought by Kaley Chiles who argued it violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections.

HAWAII GUNS LAW The conservatives expressed skepticism about a Hawaii gun law which restricts the carrying of handguns without permission on public property, such as businesses. They appeared ready to expand the right to own guns again. On January 20, the court heard arguments in a challenge by opponents of the law, backed by Trump's administration, to a judicial decision that Hawaii's Democratic backed measure probably complies with U.S. Constitution Second Amendment rights 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 On March 2, the justices heard arguments in a case in which a dual American/Pakistani national in Texas was defending a federal gun law that prohibits users of illegal drugs to own guns. Hunter Biden, son of former president Joe Biden, was charged under this law in 2023. The Justice Department appealed a ruling by a lower court that the gun restrictions were in violation of the Second Amendment rights to "keep and carry arms" guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Gun Control Act 1968 included a prohibition against gun ownership by illegal drug users. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

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 ruled on restrictions on how much money can be spent on campaigns by parties with input from candidates who support them, a type political expenditure called coordinated party expenses. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

MAIL-IN BALLOTS

Conservative justices expressed skepticism in a March 23 case against a Mississippi law that allowed mail-in votes received after Election Day be counted. This could lead to tighter voting laws across the nation. The Trump administration supported the challenge against Mississippi's law that allows mail-in votes sent by certain voters be counted as long as they are postmarked before Election Day and received within five business days of a federal election. In Mississippi, absentee voting is only available to certain categories of voters. These include the elderly, disabled and those who live away from home. A lower court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The court is expected to rule by the end June.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING On March 24, the court appeared to be ruled in favor of Trump's administration, which defended the government authority to reject asylum seekers if officials deem U.S. - Mexico border crossings to overloaded to handle more claims. The court heard arguments in a legal dispute over a policy known as "metering", which the Republican president may want to reinstate after Biden dropped it in 2021. It allowed U.S. immigration officers to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their applications indefinitely. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

Human Rights Abuses Abroad The court will hear arguments in an appeal filed by Cisco Systems on April 28, in which the tech firm and Trump's Administration are asking?justices? to limit the scope of a federal statute that has been used in the past to hold corporations accountable for human rights violations?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.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court seems to be inclined to side with an operator of Christian faith based anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers in New Jersey, in a dispute arising from a state attorney general investigation into the question of 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 federal 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 INMAT 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 brought before the court under a federal statute protecting prisoners 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.

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 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 violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end June.

WEEDKILLER CANCER LAWSUITS

On April 27, the court will hear Bayer’s attempt to limit lawsuits claiming Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. This could potentially save billions of dollars. 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.

FCC FINES FOR WIRELESS CARRIER The Justices will hear on April 21, a dispute over fines levied by the Federal Communications Commission against major U.S. carriers who shared customer location data with no consent. This is the latest case that has reached the Supreme Court challenging the power of an American regulatory agency. The case concerns the FCC's pursuit to impose tens-of-millions-of-dollars in fines against carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T before they had their day in the court.

COX COPYRIGHT DISSENSION

On March 25, the court ruled that Cox Communications could not be held responsible for piracy of songs by subscribers to its internet service. These include Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and other labels. This ended their multi-billion dollar music copyright suit. The ruling of 9-0 overturned the decision by a lower court to order a trial to determine the amount the internet service provider was liable for the record labels under a form liability known as contributory copyright violation. Cox said that a retrial would have resulted in a verdict of up to $1.5 billion against the Atlanta ISP.

(source: Reuters)