Factbox-Top cases on the US Supreme Court’s docket

Jan 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a series of important cases during its current term involving issues such as presidential powers, tariffs, birthright citizenship, guns, race, transgender athletes, campaign finance law, voting rights, LGBT “conversion therapy,” religious rights and capital punishment.

Here is a look at some of the cases being argued during the term, which began in October and runs through the end of June. The court also separately has acted on an emergency basis in a number of cases involving challenges to President Donald Trump’s policies.

TRUMP TARIFFS

The justices raised doubts during arguments on November 5 over the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a case with implications for the global economy that marks a major test of Trump’s powers. Conservative and liberal justices alike sharply questioned the lawyer representing Trump’s administration about whether a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies gave Trump the power he claimed to impose tariffs or whether the president had intruded on the powers of Congress. But some of the conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case. Lower courts ruled that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs, which were challenged by various businesses and 12 U.S. states. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

The court has agreed to decide the legality of Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, a contentious part of his efforts to curb immigration and a step that would alter how a 19th century constitutional provision has long been understood. A lower court blocked Trump’s executive order that told U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder. That court ruled that Trump’s policy violated the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment and a federal law codifying birthright citizenship rights in a class-action lawsuit by parents and children whose citizenship is threatened by the directive. No date has been set for arguments in the case.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

The court’s conservative justices signaled their willingness to undercut another key section of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law enacted by Congress to prevent racial discrimination in voting, during arguments on October 15 in a major case involving Louisiana electoral districts. The case focuses upon the law’s Section 2, which bars voting maps that would result in diluting the clout of minorities, even without direct proof of racist intent. A lower court found that a Louisiana electoral map laying out the state’s six U.S. House of Representatives districts – with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously – violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

TRUMP’S FIRING OF FED OFFICIAL

The justices on January 21 will hear arguments on Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a major legal battle over the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official as he challenges the central bank’s independence. The court declined to immediately decide a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge’s order that temporarily blocked Trump from removing Cook. In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only “for cause,” though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FIRING

The court’s conservative justices signaled they will uphold the legality of Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commission member and give a historic boost to presidential power while also imperiling a 90-year-old legal precedent. The court heard arguments on December 8 in the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that the Republican president exceeded his authority when he moved to dismiss Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter in March before her term was set to expire. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments that tenure protections given by Congress to the heads of independent agencies unlawfully encroached on presidential power under the U.S. Constitution. The court let Trump remove Slaughter while the case played out. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

LGBT ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’

The court’s conservatives during arguments on October 7 appeared ready to side with a challenge on free speech grounds to a Colorado law banning psychotherapists from conducting “conversion therapy” that aims to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. A Christian licensed counselor challenged the law under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech. Colorado said it is regulating professional conduct, not speech, and has the legal authority to forbid a healthcare practice it considers unsafe and ineffective. A lower court upheld the law. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION

The court on January 13 will hear a bid by Idaho and West Virginia to enforce their state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, taking up another civil rights challenge to Republican-backed restrictions on transgender people. Idaho and West Virginia appealed decisions by lower courts siding with transgender students who sued. The plaintiffs argued that the laws discriminate based on sex and transgender status in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection as well as the Title IX civil rights statute that bars sex-based discrimination in education.

HAWAII GUN LAW

The justices on January 20 will hear a challenge to a Hawaii law restricting the carrying of handguns on private property that is open to the public such as most businesses, giving the court a chance to further expand gun rights. Three Hawaii residents with concealed carry licenses and a Honolulu-based gun rights advocacy group appealed a lower court’s determination that Hawaii’s measure likely complies with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Hawaii law requires concealed carry licensees to get an owner’s consent before bringing a handgun onto private property open to the public.

DRUG USERS AND GUNS

The justices on March 2 will hear arguments in the Trump administration’s bid in a case involving a dual American-Pakistani citizen in Texas to defend a federal law that bars users of illegal drugs from owning guns. This law was one of the statutes under which former President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was charged in 2023. The justices took up the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that found the gun restriction largely ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.” The prohibition on gun possession by users of illegal drugs was part of the landmark Gun Control Act of 1968.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

The court heard arguments on December 9 in a Republican-led bid to strike down federal limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates in a case involving Vice President JD Vance. Some of the conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the challenge, with the court’s three liberal members seeming inclined to preserve the spending limits. The dispute centers on whether federal limits on coordinated campaign spending violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection against government abridgment of freedom of speech. Vance and other Republican challengers appealed a lower court’s ruling that upheld restrictions on the amount of money parties can spend on campaigns with input from candidates they support, a type of political spending called coordinated party expenditures. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

MAIL-IN BALLOTS

The court will hear Mississippi’s defense of a state law challenged by Republicans that allows a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted, a case that could lead to stricter voting rules around the United States. A lower court deemed illegal the state law that permits mail-in ballots sent by certain voters to be counted if they were postmarked on or before Election Day but received up to five business days after a federal election. No date has been set for arguments in the case.

U.S. ASYLUM PROCESSING

The court agreed to hear the Trump administration’s defense of the U.S. government’s authority to limit the processing of asylum claims at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The administration appealed a lower court’s determination that the “metering” policy, under which U.S. immigration officials could stop asylum seekers at the border and decline to process their claims, violated federal law. The policy was rescinded by former President Joe Biden, but Trump’s administration has indicated it would consider resuming it. No date has been set for arguments in the case.

CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS 

The court appears poised to side with the operator of Christian faith-based anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” in New Jersey in a dispute stemming from the state attorney general’s investigation into whether these facilities engage in deceptive practices. During December 2 arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to revive a federal lawsuit brought by First Choice Women’s Resource Centers challenging Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s 2023 subpoena seeking information on the organization’s donors and doctors. The First Choice facilities seek to steer women away from having abortions. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

RASTAFARIAN INMATE

The conservative justices appeared inclined to reject a Rastafarian man’s bid to sue state prison officials in Louisiana after guards shaved him bald in violation of his religious beliefs. The case, argued before the court on November 10, was brought under a federal law protecting incarcerated people from religious discrimination. Plaintiff Damon Landor, whose religion requires him to let his hair grow, appealed a lower court’s decision to throw out his lawsuit because it found the statute at issue did not allow him to sue individual officials for monetary damages. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

DEATH ROW INMATE

The court heard arguments on December 10 in a bid by Alabama officials to pursue the execution of an inmate convicted of a 1997 murder after a lower court found him to be intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The Republican-led state appealed the lower court’s determination that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on intelligence quotient, or IQ, test scores and expert testimony. A 2002 Supreme Court precedent held that executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected by the end of June.

COX COPYRIGHT DISPUTE

The court heard arguments on December 1 in a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs. The justices appeared skeptical of Cox’s assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. A lower court ordered a new trial to determine how much Cox owes Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and other labels for contributory copyright infringement. Cox, the largest unit of privately owned Cox Enterprises, said the retrial could lead to a verdict against it of as much as $1.5 billion. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

(Reporting by John Kruzel, Andrew Chung, Blake Brittain, Jan Wolfe and Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham)