(Reuters) – The current U.S. Supreme Court ruling includes cases involving guns, gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, Internet pornography, religious rights, TikTok, preventive health care, funding for Planned Parenthood, employment discrimination, federal regulatory authority over nuclear waste storage and nuclear waste storage and nuclear waste storage and nuclear waste storage and storage federal regulations for operation and federal regulatory authority over storage Products vape, voting rights and more.
Here are some cases that have already been decided and are still being decided by the Justices.
Transgender rights
The court’s conservative justices indicated their willingness to uphold a Republican ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors during arguments Dec. 4 in a key case that could affect various other state laws targeting transgender people. The Biden administration appealed a lower court ruling that upheld Tennessee’s ban on medical treatments, including hormones and surgery, for minors with gender dysphoria. This refers to the significant distress that can result from inflexibility between a person’s gender identity and the gender they were assigned at birth. The decision is expected by the end of June.
‘Ghost Guns’
On Oct. 8, the court heard arguments on the legality of a 2022 federal regulation designed by the Biden administration to crack down on “Ghost Guns,” largely unlicensed firearms whose use has proliferated in crimes. A lower court found that the US Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority in issuing rules targeting parts and kits for spirits, which can be assembled at home in minutes. Justices during the arguments signaled their willingness to support regulation. The decision is expected by the end of June.
Lawsuit by Mexican Rifles
A bid by US gunmaker Smith & Wesson and an interstate firearms wholesaler to throw out a Mexican lawsuit accusing them of aiding the illegal trade of firearms to Mexican drug cartels will go before the Justices. They appealed a lower court’s refusal to dismiss Mexico’s lawsuit under a 2005 U.S. law that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The lawsuit accused the Gun Company of knowingly maintaining a distribution system that led to guns being trafficked to cartels in Mexico. Arguments are scheduled for March 4.
Us tiktok ban
Justices on Jan. 17 upheld a bill that would have banned Tiktok from the United States on national security grounds if its Chinese parent company, ByTottance, did not sell the Short-Video app by a deadline set by Congress. The Justices ruled 9-0 that the law, which was passed by Congress last year and signed by Democratic President Joe Biden, did not violate the US Constitution’s First Amendment protection against government curtailment of free speech. The Justices upheld a lower court ruling that upheld the measure.
Internet pornography
The justices on Jan. 15 heard arguments on whether a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify the age of users in an effort to limit access to minors violates the First Amendment’s protection against government interference with speech. The Justices expressed concern about the availability of Internet pornography, but they also expressed concern about the burdens placed on adults to view constitutionally protected material. A trade group for the adult entertainment industry has appealed a lower court ruling upholding the age-restricted mandate for the republic. The decision is expected by the end of June.
Discrimination in the workplace
The issue of workplace discrimination comes before the justices in the case involved whether it should be harder for workers of “majority descent,” such as white or straight people, to prove job bias claims in lawsuits. He will hear an appeal by a straight woman who wants to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services in which she said she lost her job to a gay man and was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act. Arguments are scheduled for February 26.
Religious charter school
A bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school will go before the Court in a case that tests the separation of church and state. A lower court blocked the establishment of St. Isidore Seville Catholic Virtual School, ruling that its funding arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment restrictions on government approval of religion. No date has been set for arguments.
Exemption from religious tax
The Catholic Diocese of Wisconsin’s bid for a religious exemption from the state’s insurance tax is in court in a case with potential ramifications for constitutional religious rights. The Office of Catholic Charities, the social ministry arm of the Catholic Diocese of Superior, appealed a lower court ruling that rejected its bid for exemption. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the bureau could require Wisconsin and states with similar tax programs to expand their exemptions to meet the religious protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. No date has been set for arguments.
LGBT school books
A court has agreed to consider a bid by religious parents to keep their children out of classes in a Maryland public school district when LGBT books are read. It’s another case involving the intersection of religion and LGBT rights. Parents with children in Montgomery County Public Schools appealed after lower courts denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction ordering the district to allow children to opt out when those books are read. No date has been set for arguments.
Obamacare Preventive Care Mandate
The court will rule on the legality of a key component of the Affordable Care Act that effectively gives a task force set up under the health care law known as Obamacare the ability to ensure that insurers cover preventive health care services at no cost to patients. The Justices accepted the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that sided with a group of Christian businesses that objected to their employee health plans that covered drugs that go beyond HIV and argued that the task force’s structure violated the US Constitution. No date has been set for arguments.
Funding for Planned Parenthood
A court will consider South Carolina’s bid to end public funding for Planned Parenthood in a case that could strengthen conservative-leaning states’ efforts to strip reproductive health care and abortion providers of state money. A lower court has barred the Republican state from ending Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood of the South Atlantic, the organization’s regional affiliate. No date has been set for arguments.
Storage of nuclear waste
The court is set to consider whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the authority to license nuclear waste storage facilities after a court ruling struck down decades of practice saying it does not. The Biden administration and the company that received the NRC license to build the waste storage facility in Texas appealed the lower court’s ruling. The license was contested by the states of Texas and New Mexico, as well as oil industry interests. The case is another that tests the power of US regulatory agencies. Arguments are scheduled for March 5.
Flavored vape products
The court heard arguments Dec. 2 in defense of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s refusal to allow two e-cigarette companies to sell flavored vape products that regulators consider a health risk to youth. A lower court ruled that the FDA failed to follow proper legal procedures under federal law when it rejected applications to sell these nicotine-containing products. The decision is expected by the end of June.
Emissions on the buttocks
The fuel maker’s bid to challenge California’s vehicle emissions standards and electric cars under the federal air pollution law passes before the Justices test the Democratic state’s power to fight greenhouse gases in a major case. Valero Energy (NYSE:) And fuel industry groups appealed a lower court’s rejection of their challenge to the Biden administration’s decision to allow California to set its own regulations. No date has been set for arguments.
Fund of telecommunications services
A dispute over the legality of a congressionally authorized fund administered by the Federal Communications Commission to expand access to telecommunications services is headed before the Justices. The challenges, including an investigation by a conservative group, accused Congress of illegally delegating its authority to an independent federal agency. AND FCC (BME 🙂 And a coalition of interests and telecommunications companies appealed a lower court ruling that found Congress violated the Constitution by empowering the FCC to manage the fund. No date has been set for arguments.
Election map of Louisiana
The justices will rule on a bid by Louisiana officials and civil rights groups to preserve the electoral map that increased the state’s majority-black congressional districts in a legal challenge by a group of self-described “non-African-American” voters. A panel of three federal judges found that a map that set up six Louisiana representative districts — with two black-majority districts, according to one earlier — likely violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection. No date has been set for arguments.
A death penalty case
The court heard arguments Oct. 9 in a bid by Oklahoma Death Row inmate Richard Glossip, convicted of murder in 1997, for a new trial based on his claim that prosecutors wrongly withheld certain evidence favorable to his defense. The lower court ruled that the newly received evidence would not change the outcome of the case. The Supreme Court has scheduled Glossip’s execution in 2023. During arguments, the justices raised concerns about a lower court ruling that would allow enforcement to move forward. The decision is expected by the end of June.
Nvidia Fraud Lawsuit
On Dec. 11, a court dismissed Nvidia (NASDAQ appeal 🙂 that sought to avoid a securities fraud lawsuit by shareholders who accused the artificial intelligence factor of misleading investors about how much sales depended on the volatile cryptocurrency market. The justices, who heard arguments in the case on Nov. 13, decided not to rule on the underlying legal dispute and instead threw out Nvidia’s appeal of the lower court ruling that allowed the class action to move forward. The lawsuit is led by Stockholm, Sweden’s investment management company E. Ohman J: or Fonder AB.
