The top cases heard by the US Supreme Court during its term

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided several important cases in its current term, including those involving President Donald Trump, birthright citizenship and immigration, voting rights, tariffs on guns, race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, and LGBT "conversion therapies."

This is a list of some of the cases decided by the court during the current term. The term began in October, and ended June 30, 2009.

Birthright Citizenship The court rejected Trump's attempt on June 30, to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States - a right that has been woven into American society for centuries - scuttling his top priority in his crackdown against immigration. Trump's executive orders directed U.S. government agencies to not recognize citizenship for children born in the United States when neither parent was an American citizen, or a legal permanent resident (also known as a "green-card" holder). The court ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in America with a few exceptions.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL On June 29, the court refused to allow Trump to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, as it was determined to protect the independence of the central bank against a challenge unprecedented by 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 over monetary policies differences, as Trump is pressing the Fed to reduce interest rates.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FIRE The court on 29 June backed Trump in his firing of a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, expanding Trump's powers over the Government and overturning the 1935 precedent which recognized Congress as the only 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 a century ago by Congress. The justices did this by 'overruling' the court's pivotal ruling in the case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, the FTC's Rebecca Slaughter last year 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 a map as racially biased under this landmark civil rights act. The court invalidated 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 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 became a more important bulwark to combat racial bias in voting. Black and Latinos tend to vote for Democratic candidates.

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 authority by using this 1977 law, upheld a previous court's ruling. The court ruled that Trump's claim to be able 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 court cleared the way on June 30, allowing states to place restrictions on transgender students athletes. It upheld laws in West Virginia, Idaho and other states that prohibit them from joining female sports teams. The court overturned lower court decisions siding with transgender student athletes who challenged the bans on female sports teams in West Virginia and Idaho as being against the U.S. Constitution. Idaho and West Virginia law designates?sports team at public schools, including universities, according to "biological gender" and bars "students from the male sex". Idaho and West Virginia claim the laws protect fair competition and safety for girls and women, but critics say the laws are part of an assault on transgender Americans' rights.

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 who argued 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 counsel?Kaley Chis 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 expanding gun rights. The justices found that Hawaii's law violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which gives citizens the 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 public property.

Drug Users and Guns The court, on June 18, limited the application of an U.S. Law that prohibits firearms possession by some drug users. It rejected a Trump administration position that had "threatened" the gun rights for millions of Americans that use marijuana and who 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 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 again struck down limits on campaign spending on June 30, this time on the basis of free speech. The ruling was made as Republican major committees were preparing for the midterm elections in November with a substantial cash advantage. The court sided with Vice President JDVance and 'other Republican challengers in ruling that a limit on how much money can be spent on campaigns by parties with input from the candidates would violate the First Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution against government abridgment.

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 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 on the 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. In the suit, Cisco was accused of 'knowingly developing technology that allowed China to spy on and persecute Falun-Gong practitioners. The Alien Tort Statute allows non-U.S. Citizens to seek damages from American courts for violations against international law.

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 endorsed an extensive 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 against the agency. Trump's administration defended FCC's system of assessing financial penalties known as forfeiture order. The carriers argued that the agency's internal proceedings denied them their right to a trial by jury under the U.S. Constitution.

Compensation from Cuba The Justices on June 23, made it easier for U.S. firms to seek compensation for property seized by the former government of Fidel Castro, ruling in 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 or their agents is not applicable in cases such as the one Exxon filed against CIMEX, under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. In a separate case, on May 21, the court ruled against four American cruise operators who contested $440,000,000 in combined judgments brought by an American company 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 "crisis pregnancies centers" that are anti-abortion and 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 in Louisiana to sue prison officials after they shaved his head and held him down, in violation of the Rastafarian's 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.

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 is?intellectually disabled' and therefore ineligible to receive the death sentence. 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 of grocery store owner. The justices ruled that the state courts of Mississippi had not evaluated Terry Pitchford’s claim that four Black prospective jurors were unlawfully dismissed, in violation of a landmark Supreme Court?precedent from 1986 known as Batson v. Kentucky which prohibits excluding jury members based on race.

SENTENCE REDUCTIONS The court ruled that on May 28, judges could not order early release of prisoners "on the basis that they would receive shorter sentences now following the 2018 criminal justice reform act." 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 years after they were sentenced.

SECURITIES LITIGATION The court on 11 June sided with an investment fund group affiliated with BlackRock, and other asset management firms in their attempt to defend against certain lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs pursuant to a federal securities law. The court reversed an earlier ruling which 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 include 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)