The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

During its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a number of important cases involving such issues as presidential powers and tariffs, gun rights, race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, voting rights, LGBT “conversion therapy”, religious rights, capital punishment, and more. The term began in October, and will run through June. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases in several cases that challenge President Donald Trump's policy.

TRUMP TARIFFS During arguments on the 5th of November, the justices raised questions about the legality and impact of Trump’s sweeping tariffs. This case has implications for the global economic system. It is a test of Trump’s power. Both conservative and liberal justices pressed the lawyer for Trump's administration on whether or not a 1977 law meant to be used during national emergencies had given Trump the authority he claimed he needed to impose tariffs, or if the president had stepped into the powers of Congress. Some conservative justices, however, also stressed that presidents have inherent authority when dealing with foreign nations. This suggests the court may be divided on the final outcome. Lower courts ruled Trump had overreached by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs. This was challenged by 12 U.S. States and various businesses. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Birthright Citizenship The court agreed to rule on the legality Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship. This is a controversial part of Trump's?efforts? to curb immigration, and would change the way a 19th-century constitutional provision was understood. The lower court blocked Trump’s executive order, which instructed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize citizenship for children born in the U.S. when neither parent was an American citizen or a legal permanent resident (also known as a "green-card" holder). The court found that Trump's directive violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal law codifying the birthright citizenship rights. This ruling was made in response to a class action lawsuit filed by parents and their children who felt threatened by this directive. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRICTS The conservative justices of the court signaled on October 15, their willingness to undermine another key section in the Voting Right Act, a landmark 1965 law enacted to prevent racial bias in voting. This was during arguments in a case involving Louisiana's electoral districts. The case centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting maps that dilute the power of minorities without proof of racism. The lower court found that the Louisiana electoral map, which divided the six U.S. House of Representatives district into two districts with a majority of Black people instead of one before, violated the Constitution promise of equal treatment. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL On January 21, the justices will hear arguments about Trump's bid to remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. This is the first time a president has attempted to fire a Fed officer, 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. The Federal Reserve Act, passed by Congress in 1913 to create the Fed, included provisions that shielded the central bank against political interference. This law required governors to only be removed "for cause" and did not specify the procedure for removal.

FEDERAL TRADE 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’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that the Republican President exceeded his authority by moving to dismiss 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 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 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 as violating federal anti-discrimination laws and the U.S. Constitution. 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 October 7, the conservatives of the court appeared to be ready to support a challenge to a Colorado law that prohibits psychotherapists from performing "conversion therapy", which aims to alter a minor's gender identity or sexual orientation. Christian counselors challenged the Colorado law under First Amendment protections from government abridgment. Colorado said that it regulates professional conduct and not speech and has the legal power to prohibit a healthcare practice they deem unsafe and ineffective. A lower court upheld this law. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

HAWAII GUNS LAW On January 20, the justices will hear a challenge to Hawaii's law that restricts the carrying of handguns in public places, such as businesses. This gives the court an opportunity to expand gun rights. Three Hawaii residents who hold concealed-carry permits 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.

Drug Users and Guns On March 2, the justices will hear arguments from the Trump administration in a Texas case that involves a dual American/Pakistani national to defend a federal gun law which prohibits users of illegal drugs. Hunter Biden, son of former president Joe Biden, was charged under this law in 2023. The Justice Department appealed a lower court ruling which found that the gun restrictions were in violation of the Second Amendment rights to "keep and carry arms" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Gun Control Act, which was passed in 1968, prohibited gun ownership by drug users.

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 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 The Mississippi state court will hear the defense of a law that Republicans are challenging. This state law allows for a five-day grace period to count mail-in votes received after Election Day. This case could lead to stricter voting laws in other states. A lower court declared illegal the state's law that allows mail-in votes sent by certain voters be counted even if they are postmarked before Election Day, but only received five days after an election. Arguments in this case have not been scheduled.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING: The court accepted to hear the Trump Administration's defense to the U.S. Government's authority to restrict the processing of asylum requests at ports of entry on the U.S. Mexico border. The Trump administration appealed the lower court's ruling that the "metering policy" was illegal. This allowed U.S. Immigration officials to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their claims at the border. Former President Joe Biden revoked the policy, but Trump has said that he would be open to re-introducing it. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD - The Court heard an appeal from Cisco Systems, in which both the company and Trump administration asked the justices for a limit on the federal law used to hold companies liable for abuses of human rights committed abroad. Cisco appealed the 2023 ruling which gave new life to a lawsuit filed in 2011 accusing the California-based firm of developing technology that enabled?China's Government to monitor and persecute Falun Gong members. The Alien Tort Statute was the basis of the lawsuit. This 1789 law had lain dormant in U.S. courtrooms for almost two centuries, before attorneys began to use it in the 1980s in international human rights cases. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court seems to be inclined to side with an operator of Christian faith based anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy center” in New Jersey, in a dispute arising from a state attorney general investigation into whether or not these facilities engages in deceptive practice. During the December 2 arguments, a large majority of the justices appeared to be inclined to revive a lawsuit filed by First 'Choice Women Resource Centers against Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin 2023's subpoena requesting information about the organization's doctors and donors. First Choice's facilities are designed to discourage women from getting abortions. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

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. On November 10, the case was brought before the court 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 the lower court's decision 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 U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end June.

FCC FINES FOR WIRELESS CARRIER The Justices will hear the dispute over fines levied by the Federal Communications Commission against major U.S. carriers who shared customer location data with other companies without their consent. This is the latest case that has reached the Supreme Court challenging the authority of an American regulatory agency. The case concerns the FCC's efforts to impose tens-of-millions-of-dollars in fines on carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T before they had a chance in court. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

COX COPYRIGHT DISSERT The court heard arguments in December in an attempt by Cox Communications, a provider of internet services, to avoid financial responsibility in a major copyright lawsuit brought by record labels who accused Cox of allowing its customers to piracy thousands of songs. Justices sounded skeptical about Cox's claim that mere knowledge of user piracy was not enough to hold it responsible for copyright violations. A lower court ordered that a new trial be held to determine the amount of money Cox owes Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group Universal Music Group and others for contributing copyright infringement. Cox, which is the largest division of privately-owned Cox Enterprises said that the retrial may result in a verdict of up to $1.5 billion against it. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

(source: Reuters)