The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a number of important cases in its current term, including those relating to President Donald Trump, voting rights and tariffs, immigration, guns, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, and LGBT "conversion therapies."

This is a list of some of the cases that were argued in the current term. The term began in October, and will run through the end of June.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT On April 29, the court gutted a crucial provision of the Voting Right Act, making minorities less likely to challenge electoral maps under the landmark civil right law 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 of the Voting Act, which Congress passed to prohibit electoral maps that could dilute the power of minority voters. The ruling allowed Republican-led Southern States to demolish Democratic-held districts with majority-Black or majority-Latino voters ahead of November's midterm elections. After the Supreme Court gutted another part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Section 2 gained more importance as a barrier against racial bias in voting. Black and Latinos tend 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. 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 law codifying rights to birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely rule by the end June.

TRUMP'S TARIFS The Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2018 that Trump's tariffs were illegal because they were based on a law intended to be used in emergencies. 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 when he used this 1977 law. The court ruled that 'the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA' did not give Trump the authority he claimed for tariffs. 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" 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.

PROTECTED STATUS OF IMMIGRANTS On June 25, the court cleared the way for Trump's administration to strip hundreds and thousands of Haitian, Syrian, and other immigrants of their humanitarian status which protects them against deportation. The court overturned federal judge's decisions that had stopped the Trump administration from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 350,00 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. State Department warns travelers against visiting either Haiti or Syria due to widespread crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. TPS is an designation that allows migrants from countries affected by war, natural catastrophe or other disasters to live and work in America while it's unsafe to return home.

The conservative justices of the court have indicated that they will uphold Trump's legality in firing a Federal Trade Commission official. This would give a boost to president power and also threaten a 90-year old legal precedent. On December 8, the court heard arguments in the Justice Department’s appeal against a lower court’s ruling that the Republican President exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term of her office was due to end. 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?courts rulings that transgender students were right to challenge the bans on female sports teams in both states. The judges ruled the laws violated the U.S. Constitution as well as a federal anti discrimination law. 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 court rejected on March 31, 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 ban was an intrusion into free speech rights. The Colorado court rejected the argument that their law only protected speech, but regulated professional conduct. The court reversed a lower-court decision which had upheld the Colorado law in a case brought forth by Kaley Chiles who argued it violated First Amendment protections from government abridgment.

HAWAII GUNS LAW On June 25, the Justices struck down a Hawaii gun law that restricted the carrying of handguns in public places, such as most businesses, and without permission from the owner. This is the latest ruling to expand gun rights. The justices found that Hawaii's law violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which gives citizens a right to "keep & bear arms." The justices reversed a lower court decision that Hawaii’s Democratic-backed measure probably complied to the Second Amendment. Hawaii's law requires "express permission" from the property owner before a handgun can be brought onto a private property that is open to the general public.

Drug Users and Guns The court, on June 18, limited the application a U.S. Law that prohibits firearms possession by some drug users. It rejected a Trump administration position that threatened the rights of millions Americans who "use marijuana" and own firearms. The justices affirmed a lower-court decision dismissing an illegal gun possession case brought under the law in question against Ali Hemani. Hemani is an American and Pakistani dual citizen who lives in Texas. Hemani told authorities that he regularly used marijuana. The Supreme Court determined that the government failed to prove that Hemani's prosecution was in compliance with the Second Amendment rights to "keep and carry arms" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

CAMPAIGN FUNDING The court heard arguments in December 9 on a Republican-led attempt to overturn federal spending limits by political parties coordinated with candidates. This case involved Vice President JDVance. The conservative justices seemed to be sympathetic towards the challenge. Meanwhile, the three liberals on the court appeared inclined to maintain the spending limits. The debate centers around whether federal limits on coordinated campaigns spending violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. Vance and other 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-BALLOTS On March 23, conservative justices expressed skepticism about a Mississippi law that was challenged by Republicans. The law allows for a five-day period of grace to count mail-in votes received after Election Day. This case 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 On June 25, the court handed Trump a win by confirming that the federal government has the authority to reject asylum seekers if officials determine that border crossings between Mexico and America are too overburdened for additional claims. The court overturned the lower court's ruling that the policy was illegal. After former president Joe Biden dropped the policy known as "metering", the Trump administration said that it might seek to revive it. The policy of metering allowed U.S. Immigration officials to refuse to process asylum claims indefinitely and stop asylum seekers at border.

WEEDKILLER CANER CLAIMS On June 25, the justices ruled against thousands of lawsuits filed in state courts that accused Bayer of failing warn users of the dangers of the active ingredient of the German company Roundup weedkiller. The Missouri jury had awarded $1.25million to John Durnell, who claimed he was diagnosed as having non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following years of exposure to Roundup. The court agreed that Bayer's argument that the U.S. pesticide law prohibits claims of failure to warn that are brought in state court cannot be heard.

Human Rights Abuses Abroad The Justices further limited the scope of a federal statute used to hold companies liable for abuses of human rights committed abroad on June 23, as they released a ruling that ended a lawsuit brought by members of Falun Gong accusing Cisco Systems facilitating religious persecutors in China. The justices overturned a lower court decision that gave new life to the 2011 lawsuit brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. Cisco was accused of developing technology that enabled the Chinese government to monitor and persecute Falun-Gong practitioners. The Alien Tort Statute allows non-U.S. Citizens to seek damages from American courts in cases of violations of international laws.

SEC "DISGORGEMENT" POWER On June 4, the court rejected a challenge against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s broad authority to recover illicit profits through a financial remedy known as disgorgement. This strengthened one of the key powers of the Wall Street watchdog. The court upheld the decision of a lower-court that had supported a broad use of disgorgement powers by the SEC. In this case, the Trump administration defended the SEC. A defendant brought the challenge after a California court ordered him to pay back more than $3,000,000 in unjustified gains and interest in connection with a financial fraud case.

FCC FINES FOR WIRELESS CARRIERIES The Supreme Court ruled on June 4, defending the Federal Communications Commission system of levying fines and ruling against AT&T's and Verizon's challenge to the agency. Trump's administration defended FCC's system of assessing financial penalties known as forfeiture order. The carriers argued that FCC's internal proceedings deprived them their right to a trial by jury under the U.S. Constitution.

CUBA - COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY seized by the former government of Fidel Castro's Cuba The Justices made it easier on June 23, for?U.S. Companies can now seek compensation from Cuba for property that was seized by the former government of Fidel Castro decades ago. ExxonMobil won its case against Cuban state-owned company Corporacion CIMEX. The court ruled that a defense known as foreign sovereign immunity which prohibits U.S. suits against foreign governments or their agents is not applicable in cases such as the one Exxon filed against CIMEX based on a 1996 U.S. act called the Helms-Burton Act. In another case the court ruled against four American cruise operators who contested a combined $440 million judgment in litigation brought on by a U.S. firm accusing them for using docks that they built in Cuba and later seized.

'GEOFENCE" WARRANTS On April 27, the court heard arguments in a Virginia case over whether or not law enforcement's use a "geofence warrant" to identify suspects using 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 for mobile devices near crime scenes around the time of the crime. 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 or not the facilities engages in deceptive practice. The court revived the federal lawsuit filed by First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to challenge a subpoena issued in 2023 by the state attorney general, which sought information about the organization's doctors and donors. The lawsuit had been dismissed by a lower court. First Choice's facilities are designed to discourage women from getting abortions.

RASTAFARIAN INMATE The Justices refused on June 23, to allow a Rastafarian inmate to sue Louisiana state prison officials after they shaved his head and held him down in violation of religious beliefs. This case was brought under federal law that protects incarcerated persons from religious discrimination. The justices upheld the lower court's dismissal of Damon Landor’s lawsuit, because the law at issue did not allow him to sue individual prison officials or guards for money damages. Landor's religious beliefs require him to grow his hair.

DEATH ROW INMATE A man convicted in Alabama of a murder committed in 1997 was spared the execution on May 21, after the court upheld a ruling that the inmate has intellectual disabilities and is therefore ineligible to receive the death sentence. Alabama officials appealed a lower court decision on how to determine Joseph Clifton Smith’s intellectual capacity. The justices rejected the appeal. This method involved weighing the multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores along with expert testimony. In a 2002 Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that executing a person with intellectual disabilities violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

JURY COMPOSITION On May 28, the justices sided with an inmate on death row in Mississippi, who claimed that prosecutors had discriminated against him by excluding Black potential jurors in a 2006 trial where he was found guilty for his role in the murder of grocery store owner. They found that the state courts of Mississippi had not evaluated Terry Pitchford’s claim that four Black jurors were unlawfully dismissed for a violation of a 1986 Supreme Court precedent called Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits exclusions based upon race.

SENTENCE REDUCTIONS The court ruled that on May 28, judges could not order early release of prisoners based on the fact that they would receive shorter sentences following the 2018 criminal justice reform law. The court upheld lower-court decisions against two Pennsylvania men who were convicted of armed burglaries and sought compassionate release on the basis of the First Step Act that Congress passed many years after their sentences.

SECURITIES LITIGATION The court sided on June 11, with a group investment funds affiliated to BlackRock and other asset management firms in their attempt to defend against certain lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs under an important federal securities law. The court reversed an earlier ruling that allowed the hedge fund Saba Capital Master Fund, to sue the Investment Company Act of 1941 to invalidate fund bylaws that restricted the voting rights of activist shareholders. The Trump administration backed BlackRock and FS Credit Opportunities, as well as other funds in the case including Adams Diversified Equity Funds, Adams Natural Resources Funds and Royce Global Trust.

COX COPYRIGHT DISSENSION The court ruled that Cox Communications could not be held responsible for the piracy of songs by subscribers to its internet service. These labels included Sony Music, Warner Music Group Universal Music Group, and others. 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.

PHARMACEUTICAL SKINNY LABELS The court ruled that the generic version of Amarin Pharma Vascepa, a cardiovascular medication made by Hikma, did not violate Amarin Pharma patents. This decision could make generic drugmakers more resistant to patent suits involving "skinny label" claims. The justices reversed a decision by a lower court in favor of Amarin. Generic drugmakers argued that Amarin's victory in the case could have deterred them from producing and selling their cheaper drugs, and raised U.S. drug costs.

(source: Reuters)