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 voting rights, presidential power, tariffs and birthright citizenship. Other issues are race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, LGBT "conversion therapies" and federal agency authority. 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.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT On April 29, the court gutted a crucial provision of?the Voting Act, making minorities less likely to challenge electoral maps under this landmark civil rights act as racially biased. The court blocked a map that would have given Louisiana a U.S. Congress district with primarily Black constituents. The court's ruling undermined Section 2 in the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed it to prevent electoral maps from diluting the power of "minority" voters. After the Supreme Court gutted another part of the Voting Right Act in 2013, Section 2 gained more importance as a barrier against racial bias in voting. Black voters are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

Birthright Citizenship The court expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s directive on April 1, to restrict the birthright citizenship of Americans. Justices asked the lawyer for the Trump administration questions regarding the legal validity and practical implications of Trump's order. A lower court blocked Trump's executive order 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 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 TARIFS The judges on February 20, 2018 struck down Trump's "sweeping tariffs" that he pursued in accordance with a law intended for national emergencies. This ruling has major implications for global economics. The ruling, which was 6-3 in favor of the lower court decision that Trump had exceeded his legal authority by using this 1977 law, upheld that decision. The court ruled that Trump's claim to have the authority to impose tariffs was not supported by 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 The 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" and did not specify the procedure 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.

PROTECTED STATUS OF IMMIGRANTS On April 29, the justices heard arguments examining Trump's administration's actions to strip humanitarian benefits from hundreds of thousands Haitian and Syrian migrants, as part of his signature crackdown on immigration. The Trump administration appealed two federal judge's rulings that halted its efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which the U.S. Government had previously granted to over?350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Some conservative justices seemed to agree with the administration that courts could not second-guess the decision of the government to end TPS. Some justices questioned also the claim made by the challengers, that the administration had not followed mandatory protocols when making decisions in accordance with the law governing TPS. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

FEDERAL COMMISSION FIREING 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 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 decision that the Republican President exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before her term expired in March. 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 students. The bans were challenged by the students 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'

On March 31, the court rejected a Democratic-backed Colorado Law that prohibited psychotherapists from utilizing "conversion talk therapy" intended 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's?decision which had upheld a law brought by Kaley Chiles who argued it violated U.S. Constitution protections against government abridgment.

HAWAII GUNS LAW The conservatives 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 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 likely conforms to 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. Similar laws exist in four other U.S. states. A decision is expected to be made by the end June.

Drug Users and Guns On March 2, the justices heard arguments in the Trump Administration's bid to defend a federal statute that prohibits users of illegal drugs in Texas from owning firearms. 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 restricted 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

Conservative justices expressed skepticism in a March 23 case against a Mississippi law that allowed a five-day period of grace for mail-in votes received after Election Day. This could lead to tighter voting laws across the country. 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: The court seemed likely to rule in favor?of the Trump administration's defense of its authority to reject asylum seekers when officials deem U.S. - Mexico border crossings to be too overloaded to handle more claims. On March 24, the court heard arguments in a dispute over a policy known as "metering", which Biden's administration dropped in 2021. The Republican president may want to reinstate it. It allowed U.S. Immigration officials to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their applications indefinitely. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

WEEDKILLER CAUSES CANCER The court seemed divided on Bayer AG’s efforts to stop thousands of lawsuits alleging that the German company failed to warn users of the dangers of the active ingredient of its Roundup weedkiller. On April 27, the court heard arguments in Bayer’s appeal of a Missouri state court jury verdict awarding $1.25million to a man called John Durnell, who claimed he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following years of exposure. The lower court rejected Bayer's argument that U.S. pesticide law bars lawsuits based on claims made under state laws. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Human Rights Abuses Around the World The court heard arguments in April 28 on a case that has broad implications for American human rights litigation. Members of the Falun-Gong spiritual movement have accused Cisco Systems, of facilitating religious persecusion in China. Cisco appealed the 2023 ruling of a lower court that gave new life to the 2011 lawsuit brought under the?Alien Tort Statute of 1789. The case accused Cisco of developing technology which allowed China's Government to monitor and persecute Falun Gong Members. Cisco asked the court to limit the scope and application of the Alien Tort Statute which allows non-U.S. Citizens to sue in American courts over violations of international law. The court is expected to make a ruling by the end June.

SEC'S DISGORGEMENT POWER The Justices appeared to be inclined to support the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a case that tested the limits of one of its key powers. A financial remedy known as disgorgement, it seeks the recovery of profits from illegal activities. On April 20, the majority of justices seemed to be receptive of the Trump administration's defense of the SEC’s disgorgement powers. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

FCC fines wireless carriers

In response to a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory powers by major wireless carriers, the justices seemed inclined to maintain the Federal Communications Commission’s system of levying fines. During the April 21st arguments, the majority of justices appeared to be skeptical about the claim made by a Verizon Communications and AT&T lawyer that the in-house procedures of the Federal Communications Commission deprived them of their constitutional right to a trial by jury. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

'GEOFENCE" WARRANTS On April 27, the court heard arguments in a Virginia case over whether law enforcement using a "geofence warrant" to identify suspects based on data from mobile phones near crime scenes is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's bar against unreasonable searches. Geofence warrants approved by the court compel companies, such as Alphabet’s Google in this instance, to search mobile device location data of customers who were close to the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. In this case, a defendant pleaded conditionally guilty to robbing an institution of higher learning while reserving the right to argue against evidence obtained from what he believes was an illegal search. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court sided on April 29, with the operator in New Jersey of Christian faith based anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that are trying to impede an investigation by the state into whether these facilities engage in misleading practices. First?Choice women's resource centers brought a lawsuit against a subpoena issued by the state attorney general in 2023 seeking information about the organization's doctors and donors. The lawsuit had been dismissed by a lower court. First?Choice is a group of facilities that aims to discourage women from getting abortions.

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. The case was brought before the court on November 10 under a federal statute protecting people incarcerated 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 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 the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

COX COPYRIGHT DISSENSION

On March 25, the court ruled that Cox Communications could not be held responsible for the piracy of songs by its subscribers, owned by Sony Music Group, 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)