Updates birthright citizenship, LGBT conversion, mail-on ballots and asylum cases and adds immigration case
April 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding 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.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
The court signaled skepticism on April 1 toward the legality of Trump's directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States. The justices grilled the administration's lawyer with questions about the legal validity of Trump's executive order and its practical implications. A lower court blocked Trump's order, which 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. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.
TRUMP'S TARIFFS
The justices on February 20 struck down Trump's sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies in a ruling with major implications for the global economy. The 6-3 ruling upheld a lower court's decision that Trump's use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority. The justices ruled that the law at issue - the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA - did not grant Trump the power he claimed to impose tariffs. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs. Tariffs have been central to a global trade war that Trump initiated after he began his second term as president, one that has alienated trading partners, affected financial markets and caused global economic uncertainty.
TRUMP'S FIRING OF FED OFFICIAL
The justices signaled skepticism toward Trump's bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a case that could imperil the central bank's independence. During January 21 arguments, the justices indicated they were unlikely to grant Trump's request to lift a judge's decision barring him from immediately firing Cook while her legal challenge plays out. In creating the Fed, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions meant to insulate 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. Trump cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations - which Cook has denied - as justification for the firing. Cook, who remains in the post for the time being, called the allegations a pretext to fire her over monetary policy differences as Trump presses the Fed to cut interest rates. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
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.
PROTECTED STATUS FOR IMMIGRANTS
The court will hear arguments on April 29 over the legality of the Trump administration's move to revoke temporary legal protections for more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians living in the United States, a key priority for the president as he pursues a policy of mass deportations. The justices kept in place two judicial orders that have temporarily halted the administration's move to end Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to end TPS status for about a dozen countries. The protections are available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event.
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.
TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION
The conservative justices appeared ready to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams amid escalating efforts nationwide to restrict the rights of transgender people. The court on January 13 heard arguments in appeals by Idaho and West Virginia of decisions by lower courts siding with transgender students who challenged the bans in the two states as violating the U.S. Constitution and a federal anti-discrimination law. Twenty-five other states have similar laws on the books. The conservative justices raised concerns about imposing a uniform rule on the entire country amid sharp disagreement and uncertainty over whether medications like puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones eliminate male physiological advantages in sports. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
LGBT 'CONVERSION THERAPY'
The court on March 31 rejected a Democratic-backed Colorado law that banned psychotherapists from using "conversion" talk therapy intended to change an LGBT minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The 8-1 ruling sided with a Christian licensed counselor, casting the prohibition as an intrusion on free speech rights. The court rejected Colorado's argument that its law regulated professional conduct, not protected speech. The justices reversed a lower court's decision that had upheld the law in a case brought by counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that it violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech.
HAWAII GUN LAW
The conservative justices signaled skepticism toward a Hawaii law that restricts the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public - as most businesses are - without the owner's permission, appearing ready to expand gun rights again. The court heard arguments on January 20 in an appeal by challengers to the law - backed by the Trump administration - of a judicial ruling that Hawaii's Democratic-backed measure likely complies with the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Hawaii's law requires a property owner's "express authorization" to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public. Four other U.S. states have similar laws. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
DRUG USERS AND GUNS
The justices heard arguments on March 2 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 Justice Department appealed 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. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
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
Conservative justices signaled skepticism on March 23 toward a Mississippi law challenged by Republicans that allows a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted in a case that could lead to stricter voting rules around the country. The Trump administration argued in favor of the challenge to Mississippi's law, which 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. Absentee voting by mail in Mississippi is limited to a few categories of voters including elderly people, the disabled and those living away from home. A lower court ruled against the law. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
U.S. ASYLUM PROCESSING
The court on March 24 appeared likely to rule in favor of the Trump administration in its defense of the government's authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem U.S.-Mexico border crossings too overburdened to handle additional claims. It heard arguments in a legal dispute involving a policy called "metering" that the Republican president's administration may seek to revive after it was dropped by Biden in 2021. The policy let U.S. immigration officials stop asylum seekers at the border and indefinitely decline to process their claims. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in an appeal by Cisco Systems CSCO.O in which the tech company and Trump's administration are asking the justices to limit the reach of a federal law that has been used to hold corporations liable for human rights abuses committed abroad. Cisco appealed a 2023 ruling that breathed new life into a 2011 lawsuit that accused the California-based company of knowingly developing technology that allowed China's government to surveil and persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The lawsuit was premised on the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that had been dormant for nearly two centuries before lawyers began using it in the 1980s to bring international human rights cases in U.S. courts.
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.
WEEDKILLER CANCER CLAIMS
The court on April 27 will hear Bayer's BAYGn.DE bid to sharply limit lawsuits claiming that the German pharmaceutical and biotechnology company's Roundup weedkiller causes cancer and potentially avert billions of dollars in damages. Bayer has appealed a lower court's ruling in a case brought by a man who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after years of exposure to Roundup. The lower court rejected Bayer's argument that U.S. law governing pesticides bars lawsuits making claims over pesticides under state laws.
FCC FINES ON WIRELESS CARRIERS
The justices on April 21 will hear a dispute involving fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission on major U.S. wireless carriers for sharing customer location data without consent in the latest case to reach the justices challenging the powers of a U.S. regulatory agency. The legal fight concerns whether the FCC's pursuit of tens of millions of dollars in penalties against carriers such as Verizon Communications VZ.N and AT&T T.N - before the accused companies had their day in court - exceeded the federal agency's authority under the U.S. Constitution.
COX COPYRIGHT DISPUTE
The court ruled on March 25 that Cox Communications cannot be held liable for piracy by its internet service subscribers of songs owned by Sony Music 6758.T, Warner Music Group WMG.O, Universal Music Group UMG.AS and other labels, ending their billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit. The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision to order a new trial to determine how much the internet service provider owed the record labels for a form of liability called contributory copyright infringement. Cox had said a retrial could have produced a verdict against the Atlanta-based ISP of as much as $1.5 billion.
(Reporting by John Kruzel, Andrew Chung, Blake Brittain, Jan Wolfe, Diana Novak Jones and Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham)
((Will.Dunham@thomsonreuters.com;))
Comments