(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court’s current term includes cases involving guns, gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, online pornography, religious rights, TikTok, preventive healthcare, Planned Parenthood funding, job discrimination, federal regulatory powers on nuclear waste storage and vape products, voting rights and more.
Here is a look at some of the cases already decided and still to be decided by the justices.
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS
The court’s conservative justices indicated their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors during arguments on December 4 in a major case that could affect various other state laws targeting transgender people. Biden’s administration appealed a lower court’s decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical treatments including hormones and surgeries for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. That refers to the significant distress that can result from incongruity between a person’s gender identity and the sex they were assigned at birth. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
‘GHOST GUNS’
The court heard arguments on October 8 over the legality of a 2022 federal regulation devised by Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration to crack down on “ghost guns,” largely untraceable firearms whose use has proliferated in crimes. A lower court found that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority in issuing the rule targeting parts and kits for ghost guns, which can be assembled at home in minutes. The justices during the arguments signaled a willingness to uphold the regulation. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
MEXICO GUNS LAWSUIT
A bid by U.S. gun maker Smith & Wesson and firearms wholesaler Interstate Arms to throw out Mexico’s lawsuit accusing them of aiding the illegal trafficking of firearms to Mexican drug cartels will go before the justices. They appealed a lower court’s refusal to dismiss Mexico’s suit under a 2005 U.S. law that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The suit accused gun companies of knowingly maintaining a distribution system that leads to guns being trafficked to cartels in Mexico. Arguments are scheduled for March 4.
U.S. TIKTOK BAN
The justices on January 17 upheld a law banning TikTok in the United States on national security grounds if its Chinese parent company ByteDance did not sell the short-video app by a deadline set by Congress. The justices ruled 9-0 that the law, passed by Congress last year and signed by Biden, did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection against government abridgment of free speech. The justices affirmed a lower court’s decision that had upheld the measure. Republican President Donald Trump, Biden’s successor, subsequently opted not to enforce the law and gave the parties time to try to reach a deal.
ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY
The justices heard arguments on January 15 over whether a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of users in an effort to restrict access to minors violates First Amendment protections against government infringement of speech. The justices expressed worries over the availability of online pornography but also voiced concern over burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material. A trade group for the adult entertainment industry appealed a lower court’s decision upholding the Republican-led state’s age-verification mandate. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION
The court heard arguments on February 26 in a case in which a woman claimed she was denied a promotion and demoted by an Ohio state government agency because she is heterosexual. The justices appeared to lean toward making it easier for people from “majority backgrounds,” such as white or straight people, to pursue workplace discrimination claims. Plaintiff Marlean Ames said she had a gay supervisor in 2019 when she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and demoted in favor of a gay man – both of whom, she asserted, were less qualified than her. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
RELIGIOUS CHARTER SCHOOL
A bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the nation’s first taxpayer-funded religious charter school will go before the court in a case testing the separation of church and state. A lower court blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, ruling that its funding arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment limits on government endorsement of religion. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.
RELIGIOUS TAX EXEMPTION
A bid by an arm of a Catholic diocese in Wisconsin for a religious exemption from the state’s unemployment insurance tax heads to the court in a case with potential implications for constitutional religious rights. The Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry arm of the Catholic diocese in the city of Superior, appealed a lower court’s decision rejecting its exemption bid. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the bureau could require Wisconsin and states with similar tax programs to broaden their exemptions in order to comply the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment religious protections. Arguments are scheduled for March 31.
LGBT SCHOOL BOOKS
The court agreed to consider a bid by religious parents to keep their children out of classes in a Maryland public school district when LGBT storybooks are read. It is another case involving the intersection between religion and LGBT rights. Parents with children in Montgomery County Public Schools appealed after lower courts denied a request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction ordering the district to allow the children to opt out when these books are read. Arguments are scheduled for April 22.
OBAMACARE PREVENTIVE CARE MANDATE
The court will decide the legality of a key component of the Affordable Care Act that effectively gives a task force established under the healthcare law known as Obamacare the ability to require that insurers cover preventive medical care services at no cost to patients. The justices took up an appeal by the Biden administration of a lower court’s ruling that sided with a group of Christian businesses who objected to their employee health plans covering HIV-preventing medication and had argued that the task force’s structure violated the U.S. Constitution. Arguments are scheduled for April 21.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING
The court will consider South Carolina’s bid to cut off public funding to Planned Parenthood in a case that could bolster efforts by conservative-leaning U.S. states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of government money. A lower court barred the Republican-governed state from terminating funding to Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the organization’s regional affiliate, under the Medicaid health insurance program. Arguments are scheduled for April 2.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
The court is set to consider whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the authority to license nuclear waste storage facilities following a judicial ruling that upended decades of practice by declaring it does not. The Biden administration and a company that was awarded a license by the NRC to build a waste storage facility in Texas appealed the lower court’s ruling. The license was challenged by the states of Texas and New Mexico, as well as oil industry interests. The case is another one testing the power of U.S. regulatory agencies. Arguments are scheduled for March 5.
FLAVORED VAPE PRODUCTS
The court heard arguments on December 2 in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s defense of its refusal to let two e-cigarette companies sell flavored vape products that regulators consider a health risk to youths. A lower court decided that the FDA had failed to follow proper legal procedures under federal law when it rejected the applications to sell these nicotine-containing products. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
A bid by fuel producers to challenge California’s standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law goes before the justices in a major case testing the Democratic-governed state’s power to fight greenhouse gases. Valero Energy and fuel industry groups appealed a lower court’s rejection of their challenge to a decision by Biden’s administration to allow California to set its own regulations. Arguments are scheduled for April 23.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FUND
A dispute over the legality of a congressionally authorized fund operated by the Federal Communications Commission to expand access to telecommunications services is going before the justices. Challengers including the conservative group Consumers’ Research accused Congress of unlawfully delegating its authority to an independent federal agency. The FCC and a coalition of interest groups and telecommunications firms appealed a lower court’s decision that found Congress violated the Constitution by empowering the FCC to manage the fund. Arguments are scheduled for March 26.
LOUISIANA ELECTORAL MAP
The justices will decide a bid by Louisiana officials and civil rights groups to preserve an electoral map that raised the number of Black-majority congressional districts in the state in a legal challenge by a group of voters who called themselves “non-African American.” A panel of three federal judges found that the map laying out Louisiana’s six U.S. House of Representatives districts – with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously – likely violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection. Arguments are scheduled for March 24.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
The court on February 25 threw out Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip’s conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire plot and granted him a new trial. The justices in a 5-3 ruling concluded that prosecutors violated their constitutional duty to correct false testimony by their star witness. They reversed a lower court’s decision that had upheld Glossip’s conviction and had allowed his planned execution to move forward despite his claim that prosecutors wrongly withheld evidence that could help his defense.
(Compiled by Andrew Chung, John Kruzel, Nate Raymond and Daniel Wiessner; Editing by Will Dunham)
