President Trump urges Republican governors to redraw maps following SCOTUS decision
The Congressional Black Caucus is sounding the alarm over the “legitimacy” of Louisiana’s congressional map following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump will learn in the coming weeks whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of his signature tariffs is a one-off or whether the justices have more bad news in store for him.
Before adjourning for the summer, the court must rule on more than 30 cases, including several that test President Trump’s broader views on presidential power.
Several outstanding decisions could impact this year’s midterm elections.
Two pending decisions could protect the rights of gun owners.
It will also decide whether states can ban transgender athletes from women’s sports teams, whether the makers of the popular herbicide Roundup could be sued for failing to warn about possible cancer risks, and whether the federal government can systematically deny asylum-seekers before they reach the Mexican border.
Here we introduce the biggest cases expected to be decided by early July.
birthright citizenship
After the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s tariffs in January, the president predicted that the justices would also strike down his efforts to sharply limit who can automatically become a U.S. citizen.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal authorities to deny citizenship to infants born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The order is widely seen as a significant legal challenge, and judges have multiple ways to block it.
They could rule that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship guarantee to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” The court could also rule more narrowly against President Trump by finding that his executive order violates the 1952 Immigration Act.
Federal Reserve System and other independent institutions
The justices also seemed unlikely to allow the president to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board.
But in other cases, a majority of the justices appeared willing to side with Mr. Trump on the question of the president’s control over other independent bodies. Such a historic decision could redefine how more than a dozen government agencies operate and shift power from Congress to the White House.
Other entry restrictions
In yet another dispute over presidential power, President Trump argued that courts had no say in his decision to end deportation protections for Syrians and Haitians. Cutting humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of immigrants is a key part of President Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration.
Immigrant rights advocates have challenged the firings, arguing that the administration has reached predetermined conclusions about whether Syria and Haiti are safe places for migrants to return. But the government counters that the law creating the Temporary Status Program bars judicial review of which immigrants can live and work in the United States.
The administration is also seeking options to reinstate immigration control practices to limit the number of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The practice involves federal agents standing at the border to prevent illegal immigrants from physically setting foot on U.S. soil, at which point they would have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that required the government to process claims from people arriving at ports of entry.
Mail-in voting and campaign spending
In one of this term’s biggest cases, the Supreme Court has already shaken up this year’s election.
An ideologically divided court on April 29 sharply limited the scope of the landmark Voting Rights Act, making it harder for racial minorities to challenge electoral maps as discriminatory. The ruling set off a fight among some Republican-controlled states to impose new maps that favor Republicans.
Republicans also asked the court to deny some states a grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots. The case tests a Mississippi law that says absentee ballots mailed by Election Day can be counted if they are received within five days.
Republican lawmakers, including Vice President J.D. Vance, also hope the court will remove federal limits on how much each political party can spend to coordinate with candidates.
The cap, intended to prevent wealthy donors from circumventing restrictions they can place on federal candidates by funneling money through political parties, was passed in 1974 as part of Congress’ response to Watergate and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.
trans athlete
Courts have delivered several setbacks for the LGBTQ+ community over the past year, including a March ruling rejecting Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for young people. The court said the ban violated Christian counselors’ right to free speech.
The justices are also expected to support efforts in more than half of states to prevent transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports teams. However, courts may leave open whether states must impose such bans rather than simply permitting them.
gun rights
Four years after the court expanded gun rights by creating a new “historical tradition” test in firearms regulations, justices continue to wrestle with how to apply that test to various laws.
In a January case, the justices said they would likely strike down a Hawaii law that requires gun owners to obtain permits before taking firearms into stores or private property open to the public.
Property owners have always been able to restrict weapons. But Hawaii and several other Democratic-led states have reversed the default, banning people from owning guns unless the owner explicitly authorizes them, instead of allowing people to own guns unless explicitly prohibited.
In another gun rights case, a judge could weaken a federal law aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous or irresponsible people.
During oral arguments in March, the court debated whether a Texas man’s regular use of marijuana was sufficient reason to bring him criminally charged with gun possession. The Gun Control Act of 1968 makes it a felony for an “unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance” to possess a firearm.
Herbicide cancer claims
The ongoing battle over whether the popular herbicide Roundup causes cancer could diminish or intensify depending on whether a judge rules against the manufacturer for failing to warn of cancer risks from its active ingredient glyphosate.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, faces a potential liability of billions of dollars. The company has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuit continues, a scenario that major agricultural groups say poses a “catastrophic risk to the U.S. food supply.”
President Trump has supported Bayer, and the move has alarmed some supporters of Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.
The justices are deciding whether federal laws regulating the pesticide prevent Roundup users from suing Bayer in state court. A Missouri jury has awarded $1.25 million in damages to one successful litigant who claimed he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate.
