FACTBOX-Top cases on the US Supreme Court's docket

April 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding a series of important cases during its current term involving issues such as voting rights, presidential powers, tariffs, birthright citizenship, immigration, guns, race, transgender athletes, campaign finance law, LGBT "conversion therapy" and federal agency powers.

Here is a look at some of the cases 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.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The court on April 29 gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights law. The court blocked an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority U.S. ​congressional district. The ruling severely undermined Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which Congress enacted to bar electoral maps that would result in diluting the clout of minority voters. Section 2 had gained greater significance as a bulwark against racial discrimination in voting after the Supreme Court in 2013 gutted a different part of the Voting Rights Act. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

The court indicated 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.

PROTECTED STATUS FOR IMMIGRANTS

The justices heard arguments on April 29 examining the Trump administration's moves to strip humanitarian protections from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, part of his signature immigration crackdown. The administration appealed rulings by two federal judges halting its actions to terminate Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, previously provided by the U.S. government to more than 350,000 people from Haiti and 6,100 from Syria. Several of the conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the administration's arguments that courts cannot second-guess its decisions to end TPS protections. Some of the justices also questioned the claim by the challengers that the administration did not follow mandatory protocols for making such decisions under the law governing TPS. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

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 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 on March 24 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.

WEEDKILLER CANCER CLAIMS

The court appeared divided over Bayer AG's BAYGn.DE effort to shut down thousands of lawsuits accusing the German company of failing to warn users that the active ​ingredient in its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. The court heard arguments on April 27 in Bayer's appeal of a jury verdict in Missouri state court awarding $1.25 ‌million to a man named John Durnell who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup. The lower court rejected Bayer's argument that U.S. law governing pesticides bars lawsuits making claims over pesticides under state laws. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ABROAD

The court heard arguments on April 28 in a case with broad implications for human rights litigation ​in American courts, a long-running lawsuit brought by members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement who have accused Cisco Systems CSCO.O of facilitating religious persecution in China. Cisco appealed a lower court's 2023 ruling that breathed new life into the 2011 lawsuit, brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, that accused the company of knowingly developing technology that allowed China's government to surveil and persecute Falun Gong members. Cisco urged the court to further limit the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, which lets non-U.S. citizens seek damages in American courts ​for violations of international law. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

SEC 'DISGORGEMENT' POWER

The justices seemed inclined to back the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a case testing the bounds of one of the Wall Street watchdog agency's key powers, a financial remedy called disgorgement in which it seeks recovery of profits made from illegal activities. During arguments on April 20, a majority of the justices appeared receptive to a defense mounted by the Trump administration of the SEC's broad disgorgement power. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

FCC FINES ON WIRELESS CARRIERS

The justices appeared inclined to preserve the Federal Communications Commission's system for levying fines in a challenge by major wireless carriers to the agency's regulatory power. During April 21 arguments in the case, most of the ​justices seemed skeptical of the claim by a lawyer for Verizon Communications VZ.N and AT&T T.N that the agency's in-house proceedings deprived the companies of their right to ‌a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

'GEOFENCE' WARRANTS

The court heard arguments on April 27 in a case from Virginia over whether law enforcement's use of a "geofence" warrant to identify potential suspects based on data from cellphones near crime scenes violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment bar on unreasonable searches. Court-approved geofence warrants compel third-party companies - such as Alphabet's GOOGL.O Google in this case - to search customer location data for mobile devices that were near the scene of a crime around the time it was committed. The case involves a defendant who conditionally pleaded guilty to robbing a credit union while reserving his right to make his case for suppressing evidence gleaned from what he argues was an illegal search. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS

The court on April 29 sided with the operator of Christian faith-based anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" in New Jersey that is trying ​to impede a state investigation into whether the facilities engage in deceptive practices. The justices revived a ‌federal lawsuit brought by First Choice Women's Resource Centers challenging a 2023 subpoena from the state attorney general seeking information on the organization's donors and doctors. A lower court had thrown out the lawsuit. The First Choice facilities seek to steer women away from having abortions.

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. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

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.