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 involving challenges against President Donald Trump's policy.

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 challenge played out. Congress created the Fed by passing a law, the Federal Reserve Act, that contained provisions to protect the central bank against political interference. The law stipulated that governors could only be removed "for cause" and did not specify the procedure 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 on monetary policy, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

TRUMP TARIFFS During arguments on November 5, the justices raised questions about the legality and impact of Trump’s tariffs. This case has implications for the global economic system, which?marks an important test of Trump’s powers. The conservative and liberal justices questioned the lawyer for Trump's administration on whether or not a 1977 law intended to be used during national emergencies had given Trump the authority he claimed to impose the tariffs. They also questioned whether the president infringed upon the powers of Congress. Some conservative justices, however, also emphasized the inherent authority that presidents have 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 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order 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 will hear arguments about the legality of Trump’s directive on April 1, which restricts birthright citizenship. This is a controversial part of Trump’s efforts to curb immigration, and would change the way a 19th-century constitutional provision has been understood for many years. The lower court ruled against Trump's executive orders that 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 known as a "green-card" holder). The court found that Trump's directive violated both the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal law codifying the birthright citizenship rights.

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, the 1965 landmark 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 ruled 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 Constitutional promise of equal protection. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

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 the lower court’s decision that the Republican President exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term she was due to finish. The conservative justices seemed sympathetic to the Trump Administration's argument that tenure protections granted by Congress to independent agency heads unlawfully 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 court decisions siding with transgender student who challenged the bans as being in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and a federal antidiscrimination act. 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 statute that prohibits psychotherapists from performing "conversion therapy", which aims to change minors' sexual orientation or gender identity. Christian counselors challenged the Colorado law under First Amendment protections from government abridgment. Colorado claimed it was regulating professional conduct and not speech and had the legal authority forbidding a healthcare practice that it deemed unsafe and ineffective. A lower court upheld this law. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

HAWAII GUNS LAW The conservative Justices expressed skepticism about a Hawaii gun law which restricts the carry of handguns in public places, such as businesses. They appeared ready to expand the right to own guns again. On January 20, the court heard arguments in an appeal filed by opponents of the law, backed by the Trump administration. The challengers were appealing a ruling that Hawaii’s Democratic-backed measure likely conforms to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right. Hawaii's law demands that a property owner "expressly authorize" the bringing of a handgun on to private property. Four other states in the United States have laws similar to Hawaii's. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Drug Users and Guns The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case on March 2, involving a dual American/Pakistani national in Texas, to defend the Trump Administration's bid for a federal gun law that 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 ruled on restrictions on how much money can be spent on campaigns by parties with input from the candidates they support. This type of spending is called coordinated party expenses. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

MAIL-IN VOTES The court will hear arguments March 23 when Mississippi defends its state law that allows mail-in votes received after Election Day be counted. This case could lead to stricter voting laws in the United States. A lower court declared illegal the state law allowing mail-in votes sent by certain voters that were received up to 5 business days after an election to be counted.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING - The court will hear arguments from the Trump administration on March 24, as it defends its authority to limit asylum processing at the ports of entry along 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 rescinded the policy, but Trump’s administration indicated that it may consider resuming.

Human Rights Abuses Abroad The court heard an appeal from Cisco Systems, in which the company and Trump administration asked the justices to limit?the reach of a federal statute that was used to hold companies liable for abuses committed overseas. 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 surveillance and persecution of 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 the state attorney's investigation as whether 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's Resource Centers against Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena 2023 seeking 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 INMATE 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. The case was brought before the court in November 10 under a federal statute protecting incarcerated persons 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 of 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 a lower court ruling 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.

WEEDKILLER CANCER LAWSUITS

The court will consider Bayer's request to limit lawsuits claiming the German biotechnology and pharmaceutical company's Roundup weedkiller is cancerous. This could save billions of dollars. Bayer appealed the ruling of a lower court in a case filed by a man claiming he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma following years of exposure Roundup. The lower court rejected Bayer’s argument that U.S. laws governing pesticides bar lawsuits based on claims made under state law. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled.

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 their day in the 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 were skeptical about Cox's claim that mere knowledge of piracy by users could not be 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 other labels in relation to contributory copyright violations. 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)