Donald Trump’s ability to shape the commanding heights of US political life will be at stake when the court assembles for its new term on 6 October.
The busy schedule facing the nine justices will acquire added weight due to the momentous significance of some of the issues they have agreed to consider.
Political representation for ethnic minorities, the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, whether “conversion therapy” for transgender people can be banned, the legality of tariffs, and the president’s power to fire a board member of the Federal Reserve – all things on which Donald Trump has voiced strong views – will all face legal scrutiny and judgment in the coming weeks and months.
Here are some cases to watch this term:
Chiles v Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on ‘conversion therapy’
Up for oral arguments on Tuesday 7 October, is Chiles v Salazar, which involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for young people. Kaley Chiles, a therapist in Colorado Springs, is arguing that the law violates free speech rights because it censors conversations between counsellors and clients.
Bost v Illinois, a case concerning mail-in ballots
The following day, 8 October, sees arguments presented to the court in Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, which will consider whether a member of Congress and other litigants have a right to challenge state laws governing the counting of mail-in ballots.
Louisiana v Callais, a case that could decide whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional
A week later, on 15 October, the justices will hear oral arguments in Louisiana v Callais, a case that could decide whether section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed by Lyndon B Johnson is unconstitutional.
At issue is whether Louisiana’s deliberate creation of a second majority Black congressional district to conform with the act’s provisions to ensure ethnic minority representation violates the 14th or 15th amendments of the constitution. These amendments – passed after the US civil war – prohibit federal or state governments from denying or limiting voting rights “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.
Michael Dimino, a professor at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, told a gathering of the Federalist Society last week that Louisiana was being accused of a “racial gerrymander”,
“The governing standard for racial gerrymanders is that if a state draws its district lines with the predominant focus, then those districts are unconstitutional unless they pass strict scrutiny,” he said.
Learning Solutions, Inc v Trump and Trump v VOS Selections, cases concerning Trump’s tariffs
Another blockbuster question is set to be heard on 5 November when arguments are presented in two separate but related cases – Learning Solutions, Inc v Trump and Trump v VOS Selections – which have been consolidated and will in effect force the justices to rule on the president’s flagship tariffs policy.
At issue is whether Trump has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Trump v Cook, on whether Trump can legally fire Lisa Cook
In January, the court will hear arguments on whether Trump can legally fire Lisa Cook, a member of the board of the Federal Reserve, who he has attempted to remove amid unproven allegations of mortgage fraud.
The court decided last week to hear arguments in the case, decreeing that Cook could remain in position until it had done so.
Trump wanted the justices to allow him to remove Cook – the first Black woman to serve as a Federal Reserve governor – peremptorily while the case played out in the lower courts.
The supreme court has previously issued interim rulings allowing Trump to remove officials, including from the National Labor Relations Board, while challenges were ongoing in lower courts.
The point at issue over Cook’s potential removal is the Federal Reserve’s independence and its ability to determine monetary policy. Trump has repeatedly pressed the Fed to reduce interest rates, a demand that its governors have resisted until a quarter of a percentage point cut last month.
While the court has signaled through unsigned rulings on its shadow docket that it is supportive of Trump’s powers to remove members of federal agencies, it has previously indicated that the Federal Reserve is a special case where such power might not apply.
