By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court began its new nine-month term on Monday with major cases in store concerning presidential powers as Donald Trump probes the limits of his authority under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, while turning away a high-profile appeal by Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine […]
U.S.
US Supreme Court starts new term, with major Trump cases in store
Audio By Carbonatix
By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court began its new nine-month term on Monday with major cases in store concerning presidential powers as Donald Trump probes the limits of his authority under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, while turning away a high-profile appeal by Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.
Before hearing arguments in its first two cases of the term, the court rebuffed appeals in multiple cases. One of them was a bid by British socialite Maxwell to overturn her conviction for helping Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender, sexually abuse teenage girls, as the justices steered clear of a case that continues to hound Trump and his administration.
The justices also rejected Missouri’s appeal to revive a Republican-backed law intended to prevent enforcement of several federal gun laws in the state and a bid by the conservative activist group Project Veritas to invalidate on constitutional free speech grounds an Oregon law that generally bans unannounced recordings of conversations.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who has now served in the post for two decades, said before arguments commenced in the first case that “I have the honor to announce” that the new term is now convened.
The court takes up its first big case of the term on Tuesday in a dispute over the legality of a Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy” intended to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. That is one of a passel of cases touching on hot-button U.S. culture wars issues, with others due to be argued focusing on transgender student athletes, gun rights and race.
But the major theme of the term promises to be the authority of the president in cases involving Trump, who returned to office in January.
The court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office, already has backed the Republican president in a series of cases decided on an emergency basis this year.
In the one case this year involving Trump in which the justices heard arguments, the conservative majority handed him a major victory that buttressed presidential powers. In that case, which arose from a dispute over Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship, the court in June restricted the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide.
The court has arguments coming in November, December and January in three big cases involving Trump over the legality of his sweeping tariffs and his moves to fire officials from agencies set up by Congress with certain job protections meant to insulate them from presidential interference. The latter two cases are challenges to his actions to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter.
The first case argued on Monday involved whether a Texas judge violated the rights of David Villarreal under the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment to have a lawyer assist in his defense in his murder trial. The judge prohibited Villarreal from discussing his testimony with his attorney during an overnight recess in the trial. Villarreal was convicted in 2018 and sentenced to 60 years in prison.
The second case concerned whether a federal court must apply state laws requiring plaintiffs suing for medical malpractice to obtain an affidavit from a medical expert stating there are reasonable grounds to believe medical negligence has occurred.
Numerous states have adopted similar laws to tamp down on frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.
The case was filed by a Florida man who alleges he received improper care for an ankle injury in Delaware, where he owns a home. Federal courts can handle cases when a plaintiff and defendant live in different states.
In other appeals rejected on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a bid by Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, to avoid a lawsuit brought under an American anti-terrorism law alleging that it did business with a group blamed for downing a Malaysia Airlines jetliner over Ukraine in 2014.
The court also decided not to hear another bid by Turkey’s state-owned lender Halkbank to avoid fraud, money laundering and conspiracy charges in the United States for allegedly helping Iran evade American economic sanctions.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung and John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)