The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket

The U.S. Supreme Court has been deciding important cases in its current term. These include voting rights, presidential power, tariffs and birthright citizenship. Other issues are 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 electoral maps under the landmark civil right law as racially biased. The court blocked a map that would have given Louisiana a U.S. Congress district with primarily Black constituents. 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 rights Act in 2013, Section 2 gained more importance as a barrier 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. Justices asked the lawyer for the Trump administration questions regarding the legal validity and practical implications of Trump's order. The lower court blocked Trump’s order that told U.S. government agencies to not recognize citizenship for children born in the U.S. when neither parent is an American citizen, or a legal permanent resident (also called "green card") holder. The court found that Trump's policy was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and federal law codifying rights to birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely rule by June's end.

TRUMP'S TARIFS The Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2018 that Trump's tariffs were illegal because they were based on a law intended to be used in emergencies. This ruling has major implications for global economics. 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 to protect the central bank against political interference. The law stipulated that governors could only be removed "for cause" by the president, though it does 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 post, said that the allegations were a pretext for firing her because of monetary policy disagreements, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

PROTECTED STATUS OF IMMIGRANTS On April 29, the justices heard arguments examining Trump's administration's actions to strip humanitarian benefits from hundreds of thousands Haitian and Syrian migrants, as part of his signature crackdown on immigration. 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 signaled 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 a decision by a lower court that said the Republican president overstepped his authority in dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term she was to serve expired. 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 sports 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" 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 Colorado court rejected the argument that their law only protected speech, but regulated professional conduct. The court reversed a lower-court decision that 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 bringing of a handgun on 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 court, on June 18, limited the application of an U.S. Law that prohibits firearms possession by certain drug users. It rejected a position taken the Trump administration which threatened the rights of millions Americans who use marijuana but 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 ruled that the government failed to prove that Hemani's prosecution was in compliance with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which allows citizens to "keep and carry arms."

CAMPAIGN FUNDING The court heard arguments in December in a Republican led bid to strike federal limits on spending coordinated by candidates and political parties. 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 by candidates they support 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 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 when officials deem U.S. - Mexico border crossings to be too overburdened to process additional 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. The lower court rejected Bayer’s argument that U.S. pesticide law bars lawsuits based on claims made under state laws. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June.

Human Rights Abuses Abroad The Justices, on June 23, further limited the scope of a federal statute used to hold companies liable for abuses of human rights committed abroad. They issued a decision ending a suit brought by members of Falun Gong accusing Cisco Systems facilitating religious persecutors in China. Justices overturned a lower court decision which had given new life to the lawsuit brought in 2011 under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. Cisco was accused of developing technology that enabled the Chinese government to monitor and persecute Falun-Gong practitioners. The Alien Tort Statute allows non-U.S. Citizens to seek damages from American courts in cases of violations of international laws.

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 to 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 of the right to a jury-trial 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. This was under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. In a second case, on May 21, the court ruled against four American cruise operators who contested a combined $440 million judgment in litigation brought by an American company accusing them of using docks that they built in Cuba and later seized.

'GEOFENCE" WARRANTS On April 27, the court heard arguments in a Virginia case over whether or not law enforcement's use a "geofence warrant" to identify suspects using data from mobile phones near crime scenes is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's bar against 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 who is trying to impede an investigation by the state into whether these facilities are engaging in deceptive practice. 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 religious beliefs. This was a case filed under a federal statute protecting people incarcerated from religious discrimination. The justices affirmed a lower court decision dismissing Damon Landor’s lawsuit, because the law at issue didn’t allow him to sue individual prison officials and security guards for money damages. Landor's religious beliefs require him to grow his hair.

INMATE ON DEATH ROW 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 he is intellectually handicapped and 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 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 preventing Blacks from serving as jurors in a 2006 trial where he was found guilty of murdering a grocery store manager. They found that the state courts of Mississippi had not evaluated Terry Pitchford’s claim that four Black potential jury members were unlawfully dismissed, in violation of a 1986 Supreme Court precedent called Batson v. Kentucky which prohibits exclusions based upon race.

SENTENCE REDUCTIONS The court ruled May 28 that judges could not order early release of prisoners based on the fact that they would receive?shorter prison sentences now following the 2018 criminal justice reform legislation. The court upheld the lower court rulings against two Pennsylvanian men convicted of armed burglaries who requested compassionate release on the basis of First Step Act which 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 pursuant a federal securities law. The court reversed an earlier ruling that 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 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)