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

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a series of cases to be decided during its new nine-month term that begins on Monday, involving issues such as presidential powers, tariffs, transgender athletes, guns, race, campaign finance law, gay "conversion therapy," religious rights and capital punishment. Here is a look at some of the cases due to be argued during the court's upcoming term. The court also separately has acted on an emergency basis in a number of cases involving challenges to President Donald Trump's policies.

TRUMP TARIFFS The court has agreed to decide the legality of Trump's sweeping global tariffs, setting up a major test of one of his boldest assertions of executive power that has been central to his economic and trade agenda. The Justice Department appealed a lower court's ruling that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing most of his tariffs under a federal law meant for emergencies. The case implicates trillions of dollars in customs duties over the next decade. The lower court ruled that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. That ruling came in challenges by five small businesses and 12 U.S. states. The arguments also will include a separate challenge brought by a toy company. Arguments are scheduled for November 5. TRUMP'S FIRING OF FED OFFICIAL The justices will hear arguments on Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a major legal battle over the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official as he challenges the central bank's independence. The court declined to immediately decide a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge's order that temporarily blocked Trump from removing Cook. In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions to shield 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. Arguments are scheduled for January, though the precise date has not yet been set.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FIRING The justices will hear arguments over Trump's firing of a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission in a major test of presidential power over government agencies designed by Congress to be independent. The court has let Trump remove Rebecca Slaughter for now while the case plays out. Slaughter sued after being dismissed from the consumer protection and antitrust agency before her term expires in 2029. The case gives the court a chance to overrule a landmark 90-year-old precedent upholding job protections put in place by Congress to give the heads of certain federal agencies a degree of independence from presidential control. A judge rejected the administration's argument that the tenure protections unlawfully encroach on presidential power. Arguments are scheduled for December, though the precise date has not yet been set. TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION The court will hear a bid by Idaho and West Virginia to enforce their state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, taking up another civil rights challenge to Republican-backed restrictions on transgender people. Idaho and West Virginia appealed decisions by lower courts siding with transgender students who sued. The plaintiffs argued that the laws discriminate based on sex and transgender status in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection as well as the Title IX civil rights statute that bars sex-based discrimination in education. No date has been set for the arguments.

GAY 'CONVERSION THERAPY' The justices have agreed to hear a Christian licensed counselor's challenge on free speech grounds to a Democratic-backed Colorado law banning "conversion therapy" intended to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The counselor appealed a lower court's decision rejecting her claim that the 2019 statute unlawfully censors her communications with clients in violation of the First Amendment protections. The state has said it is regulating professional conduct, not speech. The counselor is a practicing Christian who "believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," according to court papers. Arguments are scheduled for October 7. HAWAII GUN LAW The justices took up a challenge to a Hawaii law restricting the carrying of handguns on private property that is open to the public such as most businesses, giving the court a chance to further expand gun rights. Three Hawaii residents with concealed carry licenses and a Honolulu-based gun rights advocacy group appealed a lower court's determination that Hawaii's measure likely complies with the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Hawaii law requires concealed carry licensees to get an owner's consent before bringing a handgun onto private property open to the public. No date has been set for the arguments.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE The court has agreed to hear a Republican-led challenge on free speech grounds to a provision of federal campaign finance law that limits spending by political parties in coordination with candidates running for office in a case involving Vice President JD Vance. Two Republican committees and Vance, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio when the litigation began, 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. At issue is whether federal limits on coordinated campaign spending violate the Constitution's First Amendment protection against government abridgment of freedom of speech. No date has been set for the arguments. LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRICTS The court will hear arguments for a second time in a dispute involving a Louisiana electoral map that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state. The court is expected to assess the legality of a key component of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The justices heard arguments in the case on March 24 but on June 27 ordered that the matter be argued again. State officials and civil rights groups have appealed a lower court's ruling that found that the map laying out Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the Constitution's promise of equal protection. Arguments are scheduled for October 15.

CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS The court will consider reviving a New Jersey crisis pregnancy center operator's bid to block the Democratic-led state's attorney general from investigating whether the Christian faith-based organization deceived women into believing it offered abortions. First Choice Women's Resource Centers appealed a lower court's ruling that the organization must first contest the attorney general's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging it. Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of preventing them from having abortions and do not advertise their anti-abortion stance. First Choice has argued it has a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights to free speech and free association. No date has been set for the arguments. EXXON CLAIMS FOR CUBA COMPENSATION The justices will hear ExxonMobil's bid to obtain compensation from Cuban state-owned firms for oil and gas assets seized in 1960 under a federal law that lets Americans sue foreign companies and individuals over property confiscated by the communist-ruled country. Exxon appealed a lower court's ruling that undercut its legal efforts to win such compensation from Cuban state-owned companies that allegedly have profited from stolen property in litigation invoking a 1996 U.S. law called the Helms-Burton Act. The court also took up a similar bid by a Delaware-registered company that built port facilities in Havana seized in 1960 by Cuba's government to revive $440 million in judgments against Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Line and two other cruise lines that have used the terminal. No dates have been set for the arguments.

RASTAFARIAN INMATE The justices took up a Rastafarian man's bid to sue state prison officials in Louisiana after guards held him down and shaved him bald in violation of his religious beliefs. Damon Landor, whose religion requires him to let his hair grow, appealed a lower court's decision to throw out his lawsuit brought under a U.S. law that protects against religious infringement by state and local governments. The lower court found that this law did not permit Landor to sue individual officials for monetary damages. The law at issue protects the religious rights of people confined to institutions such as prisons and jails. Arguments are scheduled for November 10. DEATH ROW INMATE The court has decided to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. Arguments are scheduled for November 4.

COX COMMUNICATIONS PIRACY VERDICT The justices took up a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and a group of music labels following a judicial decision that threw out a $1 billion jury verdict against the internet service provider over alleged piracy of music by Cox customers. Cox appealed a lower court's decision that it was still liable for copyright infringement by users of its internet service despite the ruling to overturn the verdict. The labels include Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. No date has been set for the arguments. CHEVRON AND EXXON COASTAL POLLUTION The court has agreed to hear a bid by Chevron, Exxon Mobil and other oil and gas companies to have lawsuits brought by two Louisiana localities accusing them of harming the state's coast over a period of decades moved out of state court and into federal court. The companies appealed a lower court's ruling rejecting their claims that the lawsuits belong in federal court because the parishes of Plaquemines and Cameron were suing over oil production activities undertaken to fulfill U.S. government refinery contracts during World War Two. Federal court is considered a friendlier venue for businesses in such litigation. No date has been set for the arguments.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)