Latest News

The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding a number of cases during the new nine-month session that begins Monday. These include issues like presidential powers, trade tariffs, transgender sportspeople, guns, race laws, campaign finance laws, gay "conversion therapies", religious rights, and capital punishment. The following are some of the cases that will be heard during the upcoming court term. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases involving challenges against President Donald Trump's policy.

TRUMP TARIFFS A court has agreed that it will decide on the legality Trump's global tariffs. This is a major test for one of Trump's most bold assertions of executive authority, which has been at the heart of his economic and trading agenda. The Justice Department appealed the lower court ruling that Trump had overstepped his power in imposing his tariffs, which were imposed under a federal emergency law. This case could result in trillions of dollars worth of customs duties within the next decade. The lower court ruled Trump had overreached by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to impose tariffs. This ruling was made in response to challenges from five small businesses as well as 12 U.S. States. A toy manufacturer will also be bringing a separate case. Arguments will be held on November 5.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL Justices will hear arguments about Trump's bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. This is the first time a president has attempted to fire a Fed Official, as he questions the independence of the central bank. The court refused to decide immediately on a Justice Department's request to put a judge’s order temporarily blocking Trump from removing Cook. Congress created the Fed in 1913 and passed the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions that shielded the central bank against political interference. The law required governors to only be removed "for cause" by the president, though it did not define this term or establish procedures for removal. The arguments are set for January but the exact date is not yet known.

FIRE OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION The Justices will hear arguments about Trump's firing a Democratic member from the Federal Trade Commission. This is a significant test of presidential authority over government agencies that Congress intended to be independent. The court allowed Trump to remove Rebecca Slaughter while the case is still pending. Slaughter filed a lawsuit after she was dismissed from the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Agency before her term expired in 2029. This case offers the court the chance to overrule an important precedent that dates back 90 years, upholding job-protection measures put in place by Congress for federal agency heads to have some independence from the presidential control. The judge rejected the argument of the administration that tenure protections illegally infringe on presidential powers. The arguments are set for December but the exact date is not yet known.

TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION The court will hear Idaho and West Virginia's bid to enforce state laws that ban transgender athletes in female sports teams within public schools. This is another civil rights challenge against Republican-backed restrictions for transgender individuals. Idaho and West Virginia appealed lower court decisions siding with transgender plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued the laws discriminate based upon sex or transgender status, in violation of U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee and Title IX civil right statute which prohibits sex discrimination in schools. The arguments have not been scheduled.

The Justices agreed to hear the challenge of a Christian counselor on free speech grounds against a Democratic-backed Colorado Law banning "conversion therapies" that are intended to change a child's sexual orientation. The counselor appealed the lower court's ruling that rejected her claim that a 2019 Colorado statute violated the First Amendment by censoring her communications with her clients. The state claims it regulates professional conduct and not speech. According to court documents, the counselor is a Christian who believes that people "flourish when they live in accordance with God's plan, including their biological gender." Arguments will be held on October 7.

HAWAII GUNS LAW The court took up the challenge of a Hawaii gun law that restricts the carrying handguns in public places, such as businesses. This gave the court the opportunity to expand gun rights. Three Hawaii residents who hold concealed carry licenses, and a gun rights group based in Honolulu appealed the lower court's ruling that Hawaii's measure is likely to comply with the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment right of keep and bear arms. Hawaii's concealed carry law requires that licensees obtain the owner's permission before bringing their handguns onto public property. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CAMPAIGN FUNDING The court agreed to hear the Republican-led challenge, on free speech grounds, to a federal campaign finance provision that limits spending by parties in coordination and cooperation with candidates for office. This case involved Vice President JDVance. Vance and two Republican committees, both of whom were running for U.S. Senate at the time the litigation started, appealed the ruling by a lower court that limited the amount of money political parties could spend on campaigns, with the input of candidates they supported. The question is whether the federal restrictions on coordinated campaign expenditures violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. The arguments have not been scheduled.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRECTS The court will again hear arguments in a dispute involving a Louisiana election map that increased the number of U.S. Congress districts with a majority of Black people in the state. The court will be assessing the legality a key element of the 1965 Voting Right Act that was meant to prevent racial bias in voting. Justices heard arguments on March 24, but ordered on June 27 that the matter be debated again. State officials and civil right groups appealed an earlier court ruling which found that the map of Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives district - now with two Black majority districts instead of one - was in violation of the Constitution's equal protection promise. Arguments will be held on October 15.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court will examine whether to revive a New Jersey operator of a crisis pregnancy center's attempt to stop the Democratic-led attorney general's investigation into whether the Christian faith based organization misled women into thinking it offered abortions. First Choice Women's Resource Centers has appealed the ruling of a lower court that said the organization had to contest the attorney general's summons in state court first before filing a federal suit. The crisis pregnancy centers offer services to pregnant woman with the aim of preventing abortions. They do not promote their anti-abortion views. First Choice argues that it has the right to take its case to federal court, because it alleges a violation of First Amendment rights for free speech and freedom of association. The arguments have not been scheduled.

EXXON CLAIMS CUBA COMPENSATION Justices will hear ExxonMobil’s bid to get compensation from Cuban state owned firms for oil assets seized by Cuban communists in 1960. The law allows Americans to sue foreign companies or individuals over confiscated property. Exxon appealed the ruling of a lower court that undermined its legal efforts to obtain compensation from Cuban companies who allegedly profited by stolen property. The lawsuit invoked a 1996 U.S. Law called Helms-Burton Act. The court also heard a similar request by a Delaware registered company that had built port facilities at Havana that were seized by Cuba in 1960. It wanted to reinstate $440 million of judgments against Carnival Cruise Line, Norwegian Cruise Line, and two other cruise companies that used the terminal. The arguments have not been scheduled.

RASTAFARIAN INMATES The justices heard a Rastafarian's case to sue Louisiana prison officials for shaven him bald and holding him down in violation of religious beliefs. Damon Landor's religion dictates that he let his hair grow. He appealed the lower court decision to dismiss his lawsuit filed under a U.S. statute protecting against religious infringements by local and state governments. Landor was not allowed to sue officials individually for damages under this law, according to the lower court. The law in question protects religious rights for people who are confined in institutions like prisons and jails. The arguments are scheduled for 10 November.

DEATH ROW INMATES The court will hear the appeal of Alabama officials against a ruling that an intellectually-disabled man who was convicted of murder in 1997, but spared from death penalty. They are pressing ahead with their bid to execute the Republican-governed State. According to the lower court's analysis of Joseph Clifton Smith's IQ scores and expert testimony, he was deemed intellectually disabled. According to a Supreme Court decision from 2002, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unjust punishment is violated by executing a person with intellectual disabilities. The arguments are scheduled for 4 November.

COX COMMUNICATIONS PIRACY VERDICT Justices heard a dispute over copyright between Cox Communications, a music label group and the court after a judge threw out an $1 billion jury verdict that had been pronounced against Cox Communications for alleged music piracy by Cox's customers. Cox Communications appealed the lower court decision that it would still be liable for any copyright violations by its customers despite the ruling overturning the verdict. Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group are among the labels. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CHEVRON AND XXON COASTAL POLLLUTION The court agreed to hear an application by Chevron and Exxon Mobil, as well as other oil and gas firms to move lawsuits filed by two Louisiana municipalities accusing them of damaging the state's coastline over a decade-long period to federal court. The companies appealed the lower court's decision rejecting their claim that the lawsuits should be heard in federal court, because the parishes Plaquemines & Cameron were suing for oil production undertaken during World War Two to fulfill U.S. Government refinery contracts. Federal court is regarded as a more friendly venue for such litigation. Arguments have not been scheduled.

(source: Reuters)