The United States Supreme Court prepares to examine the presidential powers in important cases during the opening of its new mandate next Monday, including the legality of the tariffs of President Donald Trump and his decision to fire officials of the Federal Reserve and another agency created by Congress with safeguards against political interference.
As usual, the Court begins its nine -month period on the first Monday of October, already the end of June will be issued in the various cases that arise. The court, with a conservative majority of 6 to 3, has promoted a drastic right of American law under the mandate of John Roberts, who has chaired the Supreme Court for two decades.
The court is preparing to listen to disputes related to issues of the so -called “cultural war”, such as breed, conversion therapy for homosexuals and the participation of transgender people in sports. Another case refers to restrictions on electoral financing challenged by Trump’s vice president JD Vance.
The judges will listen to the arguments on November 5 about the legality of the broad Trump tariffs, after a lower court ruled that the then Republican president extracted in his authority by imposing most of these tariffs under a federal law designed for emergencies.
The case tests one of Trump’s boldest statements about the Executive Power. The arguments include challenges to tariffs by 12 US states and various companies.
“What is at stake on the economic level is huge,” said Taraleight Davis, a professor at Bradley University. “If Trump loses, existing tariffs could be invalidated immediately, which would disturb markets and commercial negotiations,” he added. “If he wins, it will be confirmed that presidents can unilaterally restructure the economy through tariffs without the approval of Congress.”
The Court will listen to the arguments in January about Trump’s attempt to dismiss the governor of the Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook, in an important legal battle that represents the first attempt of a president to fire a Fed official, thus questioning the independence of the Central Bank.
When creating the Federal Reserve in 1913, Congress approved a law that included provisions to protect the central bank from political interference, demanding that governors could only be dismissed by the President “for justified cause”, although the term is not defined or procedures for their dismissal are established. The law had never been subjected to trial.
A judge ruled that Trump’s accusations against Cook – according to which he would have committed mortgage fraud before assuming the position, something she denies – they probably do not constitute sufficient reason for their dismissal under this law. Cook, the first black woman to hold the position of governor of the Federal Reserve, described Trump’s accusations as a pretext to fire her for her position in monetary policy.
When programming the arguments, the judges did not attend to the request of the Department of Justice to allow Trump to dismiss Cook while developing the case, so she will remain in office for now.
About the dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter of the FTC
The judges will hear in December the arguments about the dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter, a democratic member of the Federal Commerce Commission. The case gives conservative judges the opportunity to cancel the precedent of the Court of 1935 that confirmed the labor protections promulgated by Congress to isolate leaders from certain federal agencies of presidential control.
The court allowed Trump to dismiss Slaughter while his legal challenge develops.
Find: Trump would consider an agricultural rescue of 10 thousand MDD through tariffs
More important cases that involve presidential powers may arise. The Trump administration has already asked the judges to decide on the legality of their attempt to limit citizenship by birth.
Since the final rulings of their last term issued in June, the judges have remained busy managing the emergency requests of the administration to apply various Trump measures that had been blocked by lower courts, while the litigation continues. The court has backed Trump in almost all these cases.
‘Homosexual conversion therapy
The first important case that will be presented during the new mandate will be Tuesday, when a challenged Christian professional counselor, based on freedom of expression, a Colorado Law – resulted in the Democrats – that prohibits the “conversion therapy” aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of a minor.
A lower court rejected the claimant’s allegation that the law censures his communications with clients, violating the protections of the first amendment of the United States Constitution against government restriction of freedom of expression.
Later, the Court will listen to the applications of Idaho and Virginia Occidental to enforce state laws – resorted to Republicans – that prohibit transgender athletes to participate in the women’s sports teams in public schools.
On October 15, the arguments about an electoral map of Louisiana will be heard that increased the number of American congressional districts of black majority in the state. The case provides the conservative majority for the opportunity to dismantle a key provision of the Law on Voting Law, the historic 1965 norm destined to prevent racial discrimination in suffrage.
The Vance case involves a provision of the Federal Law on Financing of Campaigns that limits the expense of political parties in coordination with candidates seeking a position. Vance and other Republicans challenged her for considering her a violation of the first amendment. The lower courts disagreed.
“It will undoubtedly be a period that will not only have legal importance, like everyone else, but will also be politically important and culturally relevant,” said Xiao Wang, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
With Reuters information
Continue reading: Trump points to agreements in Pharmacy, AI, Energy and Mining before the mid -period elections
Follow the information about the world in our international section
