The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

During its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a number of important cases involving voting rights, presidential power, tariffs and birthright citizenship. Other issues include race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, LGBT "conversion therapies" and federal agency authority. The term began in October, and will run through the end of June. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases in several cases that challenge President Donald Trump's policy.

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 the landmark civil right law. The court blocked an electoral map which would have given Louisiana a 2nd U.S. Congress district with a majority of Black people. The decision severely 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 Right Act in 2013, Section 2 gained more importance as a "bulwark" 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 in the United States. The justices asked the administration's attorney about the legal validity and practical implications of Trump's order. The lower court blocked Trump’s executive order that instructed U.S. agencies to not recognize citizenship for children born in?U.S. If neither parent is a legal permanent resident or American citizen, this is also known as a "green-card" holder. The court found that Trump's policies violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws codifying birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely rule by June's end.

TRUMP'S TARIFFS On February 20, the justices struck down Trump's sweeping trade tariffs, which he imposed under a law intended for national emergencies. This ruling has major implications?for global economic growth. The 6-3 decision upheld the lower court's ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in using this 1977 law. 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.

TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL 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 case is being resolved. Congress created the Fed by passing a law, the Federal Reserve Act, that contained provisions designed to protect the central bank against political interference. The law stipulated that governors could only be removed "for cause" if the president so deemed. However, the law did not define this term or establish procedures 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 of monetary policy, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

IMMIGRANTS WITH PROTECTED STATUS The Justices heard arguments April 29 on the Trump administration's move to strip humanitarian benefits from hundreds of thousands Haitian and Syrian migrants, as part of Trump's signature immigration crackdown. The Trump administration appealed two federal judge's rulings that halted its efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which the U.S. Government had previously granted to over 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Some conservative justices seemed to agree with the administration that courts could not second-guess the decision of the government to end TPS. Some justices questioned also the challengers' claim that the administration didn't follow mandatory protocols when making decisions in accordance with the law governing TPS. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Federal Trade Commission Firing The conservative justices of the court have indicated that they will uphold Trump's legality in firing a Federal Trade Commission Member and give an historic 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 appeal of the lower court's ruling 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 sports players from participating in female teams, amid an escalating nationwide effort to restrict rights for transgender individuals. 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" The court rejected on March 31, a Democratic-backed Colorado Law that prohibited psychotherapists from utilizing "conversion talk therapy" intended 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 infringement on his right to free speech. The Colorado court rejected the argument that their 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 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 a firearm again. On January 20, the court heard arguments in an appeal filed by opponents of the law, backed by Trump's administration. The challengers were appealing a ruling by a judge that Hawaii's Democratic backed measure probably complies with U.S. Constitution Second Amendment rights to bear and keep arms. Hawaii's law demands that a property owner "expressly authorize" the handgun to be brought onto public 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 On March 2, the justices heard arguments in a case in which a dual American/Pakistani national in Texas was defending a federal gun law that prohibits users of illegal drugs to own guns. Hunter Biden, son of former president Joe Biden, was charged under this law in 2023. The Justice Department appealed a ruling by a lower court that the gun restrictions were in violation of the Second Amendment rights to "keep and carry arms" guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Gun possession by illegal drug users was prohibited under the landmark Gun Control Act 1968. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE On December 9, the court heard arguments in a Republican led bid to strike down "federal limits" on spending by parties and candidates coordinated with each other in a case that 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-BALLOTS On March 23, conservative justices expressed skepticism about a Mississippi law that was challenged by Republicans. The law allows for a five-day period of grace to allow mail-in votes received after Election Day be counted. This case could lead to stricter voting laws across the country. 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 business days of a federal election. In Mississippi, absentee voting is only available to certain categories of voters. These include the elderly, disabled and those who live away from home. A lower court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The court is expected to rule by the end June.

U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING: The court seemed likely to rule for the Trump administration's defense of its authority to reject asylum seekers if officials deem U.S. - Mexico border crossings to be too overloaded to handle more claims. On March 24, the court heard arguments in a dispute over a policy known as "metering," which Biden's administration dropped in 2021. The Republican president may want to reinstate it. It allowed U.S. Immigration officials to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their applications indefinitely. The decision is expected to be made by the end June.

WEEDKILLER CAUSES CANCER The court seemed divided on Bayer AG’s efforts to stop thousands of lawsuits alleging that the German company failed to warn users of the dangers of the active ingredient of its Roundup weedkiller. On April 27, the court heard arguments in Bayer’s appeal of a Missouri state court jury verdict awarding $1.25million to a man called John Durnell, who claimed he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following years of exposure. Bayer's claim that U.S. pesticide law prohibits lawsuits based on state laws was rejected by the lower court. The court is expected to rule by the end of June.

Human Rights Abuses Around the World The court heard arguments in April 28 on a case that has broad implications for American human rights litigation. Members of the Falun-Gong spiritual movement have accused Cisco Systems, in a long running lawsuit, of facilitating religious persecusion in China. Cisco appealed the 2023 ruling of a lower court that gave new life to the 2011 lawsuit brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 that accused the company of developing technology which allowed China's Government to monitor and persecute Falun-Gong members. Cisco asked the court to limit the scope the Alien Tort Statute which allows non-U.S. Citizens to sue in American courts over violations of international laws. The court is expected to make a ruling by the end June.

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. The SEC was defended by the Trump administration in this 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 FCC's internal proceedings deprived them their right to a trial by jury under the U.S. Constitution.

'GEOFENCE" WARRANTS On April 27, the court heard arguments in a Virginia case about whether or not law enforcement's use a "geofence warrant" to identify suspects using data from?cellphones near crime scene violates Fourth Amendment's bar on unreasonable searches. Geofence warrants approved by the court compel companies, such as Alphabet’s Google, to search for mobile devices near crime scenes around the time of the crime. In this case, a defendant pleaded conditionally guilty to robbing an institution of higher learning while reserving the right to argue against evidence obtained from what he believes was an illegal search. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

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 obstruct a state probe 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. A lower court had dismissed the lawsuit. First Choice's facilities are designed to discourage women from getting abortions.

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. On November 10, the case was brought before the court 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 him to sue officials individually for monetary damage. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

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 has intellectual disabilities and is therefore ineligible to receive the death sentence. Alabama officials appealed a lower court's method of determining 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 violated 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 trial where he was found guilty in 2006 of his involvement in the murder?of a supermarket owner. The justices found that the state courts of Mississippi had not evaluated Terry Pitchford’s claim that four Black prospective jurors were unlawfully dismissed, in violation a 1986 Supreme Court precedent called Batson v. Kentucky which prohibits exclusion based on race.

SENTENCE REDUCTIONS The court ruled that on May 28, judges could not order early release of prisoners based on the fact that they would receive shorter sentences following the 2018 criminal justice reform law. 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 many 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 allowing hedge fund Saba Capital Master Fund, to sue the Investment Company Act of 1980 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)