Introduction to the Supreme Court’s Current Term
The Supreme Court has issued 29 emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration’s second term, with a majority of the decisions favoring the administration. As the court’s current term progresses, several high-profile cases are expected to be decided, including those related to Trump’s ability to declare a national emergency to impose tariffs, remove a member of the Federal Reserve, and revoke birthright citizenship.
Trump’s Tariff Powers: A Constitutional Debate
One of the most anticipated decisions is whether Trump can unilaterally impose broad tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose tariffs, but the Trump administration argues that a 1977 emergency law also allows the president to levy them during a national emergency. The case, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, has been argued, and a majority of justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s claim. Lower courts have ruled that Trump’s tariffs amount to an unlawful use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Removal of a Federal Reserve Member: A Test of Presidential Power
The Supreme Court will also rule on whether President Trump can remove Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook. The case, Trump v. Cook, is set to be argued on January 20. The effort to remove Cook represents an unprecedented attempt to reshape the Fed board, and the court’s decision will have significant implications for the independence of federal agencies.
Birthright Citizenship: A Challenge to the 14th Amendment
The justices have yet to set a date for arguments on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The order, issued on the first day of Trump’s second term, directs federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documentation to children born in the US to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. Lower courts have blocked the order, finding it unconstitutional.
Other Notable Cases
In addition to these high-profile cases, the Supreme Court is also considering several other notable cases, including challenges to state bans on conversion therapy for gay and transgender people, the participation of transgender women in girls’ and women’s sports, and the use of race in drawing legislative maps.
Conversion Therapy: A First Amendment Debate
The case of Chiles v. Salazar, argued on October 7, involves a Christian counselor who challenges bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors, citing her First Amendment rights. A majority of justices appeared likely to support the counselor’s claim, which could have significant implications for the regulation of therapeutic practices.
Race and Voting Districts: A Challenge to the Voting Rights Act
The case of Louisiana v. Callais, argued on October 15, involves a challenge to a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana. The conservative justices appeared likely to strike down the district, which could significantly change the 1965 Voting Rights Act and limit the use of race in drawing legislative maps.
Campaign Spending: A Challenge to Campaign Finance Laws
The case of National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, argued on December 9, involves a challenge to limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with congressional and presidential candidates. Conservative justices appeared to back the Republican effort to lift these limits, which could increase the influence of wealthy donors over elections.
Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports: A Debate Over Fairness and Inclusion
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on January 13 on cases challenging state laws that restrict which school sports teams transgender students can join. The cases come from Idaho and West Virginia, where laws prohibit transgender athletes from competing on girls’ teams.
Mail-in Ballots: A Challenge to Election Laws
The case of Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, argued on October 8, involves a challenge to an Illinois law that allows counting mail ballots received after Election Day if they were postmarked on time. The court appeared open to reviving the Republican challenge, which could have significant implications for election laws and voting access.
Independence of Federal Agencies: A Test of Presidential Power
The case of Trump v. Slaughter, argued on December 8, involves a challenge to the removal of Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. The conservative majority signaled it could give presidents broader authority to remove officials from independent agencies, potentially overturning a 90-year-old precedent.
As the Supreme Court’s current term continues, these cases will have significant implications for the balance of power in the US government, the regulation of elections and campaign finance, and the rights of marginalized communities. The court’s decisions will be closely watched and are likely to have far-reaching consequences for the country.
