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 involving President Donald Trump, voting rights and tariffs, birthright citizenship; immigration, guns; race, 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 the month of June.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL On June 29, the court refused to allow Trump to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, as it stood firm in preserving the central bank’s independence from an unprecedented challenge from the president. The court prevented Trump from removing?Cook, providing a safety net for the Fed. Since the founding of the central bank in 1913, no president has attempted to remove a Fed Governor. Trump claimed that Cook's firing was justified by unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which Cook denied. Cook said the allegations were a pretext for firing her because of monetary policy disagreements, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FIRE The court?on June 29, backed Trump’s firing of a Democratic Federal Trade Commission Member, expanding his power over the government. It also overturned its 1935 precedent which had recognized Congress' authority to protect certain regulatory agency leaders from being removed by the president at will. The Justices invalidated tenure provisions for FTC employees enacted more than 100 years ago by Congress. The justices invalidated the court's crucial decision in the case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Last year, Trump fired Rebecca?Slaughter from the FTC over policy differences.

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 discriminatory. The court ruled against an electoral map which would have given Louisiana a U.S. Congress district with a majority of Black people. The court's ruling undermined Section 2 the Voting Rights Act which Congress passed to prohibit electoral maps that diluted the power of minority voters. The ruling allowed Republican-led Southern States to demolish Democratic-held districts with a majority of Black and 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 ordered that the order be blocked, telling 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 citizenship by birth. 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 imposed under 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 decision that Trump had exceeded his legal authority by using this 1977 law, confirmed a previous 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.

IMMIGRANTS WITH PROTECTED STATUS The court cleared the way on June 25, allowing the Trump administration the ability 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 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. The 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.

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. The court heard arguments on January 13, in appeals filed by Idaho and West Virginia, regarding lower court decisions siding with transgender student who challenged the bans imposed in both states for violating the U.S. Constitution as well as a federal antidiscrimination act. Twenty-five states 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" 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 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 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 position taken the Trump administration which had threatened the rights of millions of Americans who use marijuana but own firearms. The justices upheld the decision of a lower court to dismiss a charge of illegal gun possession brought under the law in question against Ali Hemani. Hemani is an American-Pakistani double citizen who lives in Texas and told authorities that he regularly used marijuana. The Supreme Court found 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. Some conservative justices seemed sympathetic to the challenge. The court's three liberals members appeared inclined to maintain the spending limits. The debate centers around whether federal limits on campaign spending coordinated with candidates they support 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 BOARDS On June 29, the court upheld state laws that allowed mail-in votes received after Election Day in Mississippi to be counted. The ruling rejected a Republican-led appeal against a grace period of five days. The court overturned the decision of a lower-court that found Mississippi's laws incompatible with U.S. statutes governing federal elections for the president, Senate, and House of Representatives. 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 days of a federal election.

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 crowded to accept any more 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 which had given 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 he was ordered to pay more than $3,000,000 in ill-gotten gain and interest in relation to a financial fraud.

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

Compensation from Cuba The Justices made it easier on June 23, for U.S. firms to seek compensation for property seized by the former government of Fidel Castro, when they ruled in favor ExxonMobil's lawsuit against Cuban state owned firm Corporacion CIMEX. The court ruled that a defense known as foreign sovereign immunity which prohibits U.S. suits against foreign governments and their agents is not applicable in cases such as the one Exxon filed against CIMEX. This was under the 1996 U.S. Law called the "Helms-Burton Act". In another case the court gave a setback to four American cruise operators who contested $440,000,000 in combined judgements brought by a U.S. firm accusing them for using docks that they built in Cuba and later seized.

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 federal suit 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's facilities are designed to discourage women from getting abortions.

RASTAFARIAN INMATES 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 was a case brought by a Rastafarian inmate under a federal statute protecting inmates from religious discrimination. The justices upheld the lower court's dismissal of Damon Landor’s lawsuit, because the law at issue didn't allow him to sue individual prison officials or guards for money damages. Landor's religious beliefs require him to grow his hair.

INMATE ON DEATH ROW A man convicted in Alabama of a murder committed in 1997 was spared death after the court, on May 21,?kept in force a judicial ruling that the inmate has intellectual disabilities and is therefore ineligible to receive the death penalty. Alabama officials appealed a lower court's 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 violates 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 who claimed that prosecutors had discriminated against him by excluding Black potential jurors in a 2006 trial where he was found guilty for his involvement in the murder a grocery owner. They found that the state courts of Mississippi had not evaluated Terry Pitchford’s claim that four Black jurors were unlawfully dismissed for violating a 1986 Supreme Court precedent called Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits exclusions based upon race.

SENTENCE REDUCTIONS The court ruled May 28 that judges could not?order early release of prisoners based on the fact that they would receive shorter sentences following the 2018 criminal justice reform act. The court upheld lower court rulings against two Pennsylvanian men convicted of armed burglaries who requested compassionate release on the basis of the First Step Act which Congress passed 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 a 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)