A look at the major cases the Supreme Court will take up in its new term

Geoff Bennett:

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term following a summerlong recess shaped by legal battles over the Trump administration's policy agenda.

William Brangham has a preview of what's to come.

William Brangham:

That's right, Geoff. Cases are still being added to the docket, as the justices said today they will hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that regulates where people can carry guns. The High Court is also set to hear a case involving the president's tariff policies and will rule on major issues like election maps, LGBTQ rights and abortion.

Joining us to break it all down is "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and Steve Vladeck, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.

So nice to see you both. Thanks for being here.

Steve, officially, the term starts Monday, but it has been a very, very busy summer. The justices have been issuing rulings on the shadow docket. Remind us what they have done vis-a-vis this administration.

Steve Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center:

Gosh, how long do we have?

(Laughter)

Steve Vladeck:

I mean, just about two hours ago, as we're sitting here, the court handed down the latest, the 23rd consecutive ruling for President Trump granting emergency relief, this one clearing the way for Secretary Noem to cancel something called temporary protected status for Venezuelan migrants.

We have seen rulings clearing the way for the elimination of transgender service members, clearing the way for the firing of all kinds of senior federal officers, Department of Education employees, for the pocket rescissions of $4 billion of foreign aid funding. I mean, it's really a stunning list…

William Brangham:

Right.

Steve Vladeck:

… of actions that the Supreme Court, usually through unsigned, unexplained orders, has let the Trump administration to continue, and it's carried all the way up to this afternoon.

William Brangham:

And, starting on Monday, when the term actually begins, there will be some other major cases that they're ruling on with regards to the administration, the president's tariff policies, whether he can fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve.

What is at stake here for this administration?

Amy Howe:

These are both really core parts of the president's agenda. The language in some of the briefs filed by John Sauer, who's the solicitor general and the president's top lawyer at the Supreme Court, in the tariffs case is — is in some ways really kind of remarkable.

There's language, and I'm not quoting verbatim here, but along the lines of how the tariffs and the negotiations that follow as a result of the tariffs have pulled the American economy back from the precipice. And so it's really — this is an issue that is really important to the president and his agenda.

And then, in the case of Lisa Cook, and this is the member of the Fed's Board of Governors, Trump has tried to fire her, he says for cause, which he says was — relates to mortgage fraud that she allegedly committed before becoming a governor. She's pushed back against those allegations. He has long criticized the Fed since he's been in office for failing to reduce interest rates, but then also it goes to the broader power to be able to fire the members of these independent agencies.

He's also tried — had more success in firing Rebecca Slaughter, who's one of the members of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Supreme Court will hear her case as well.

William Brangham:

Steve, as you said, the president had racked up quite a few successes before the court. Coming into this term, do you have a sense — maybe it's self-evident in what you were describing before — as to what kind of check the court is willing to put on a president who seems to really want to flex his executive muscle?

Steve Vladeck:

I mean, William, this is the question.

And I think, if you look at the pattern of cases going back to April, the only real example we have of this court pushing back against the Trump administration was that Alien Enemies Act case from Texas in April.

What was different about that case? I think the only real difference was, there, it wasn't that President Trump was defying a lower court. It wasn't that President Trump was defying Congress. It was that President Trump was on the verge of defying the Supreme Court. And so the pattern really seems to be that the justices will zealously guard their authority, even as they're not going to go out of their way to protect lower courts who are working night and day in these cases, to protect Congress' prerogatives in the cases Amy mentioned.

I think the question is, how much is that pattern going to continue as these merits cases become more and more a part of the justices' work?

William Brangham:

Amy, there's also a continuing trend of the court weighing in on LGBTQ cases. And there's — one of the first cases they will hear next week is — deals with this a ban on what's called conversion therapy.

Tell us what's at stake in that case.

Amy Howe:

So this is a case about Colorado's ban, as you say, on conversion therapy, which is therapy intended to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.

And Colorado and I think more than 20 other states have similar laws, and…

William Brangham:

Saying that you can't do that therapy.

Amy Howe:

You can't do this kind of therapy.

And Colorado says, we enacted this ban because there is evidence that shows that such therapy is ineffective and it's harmful. It can lead to depression and anxiety and even suicide. And Colorado says, when we are regulating conversion therapy, we are regulating medical treatment.

The plaintiff in the case is a woman named Kaley Chiles, who is a professional counselor and also a practicing Christian. And she says what they're doing here is, they're regulating my speech, because all I do is talk therapy. And so that's this issue of what is speech and what is conduct, but this is also the latest in a series of cases involving religious people and speech and LGBTQ people.

We had two cases earlier involving the man who didn't want to make a cake for same-sex weddings, the woman who didn't want to make a Web site for same-sex marriages. And that was — they felt that they were being compelled to speak. This is a woman who wants to speak, and the state, she says, is telling her that she can't.

William Brangham:

Steve, it is Chief Justice John Roberts' 20th anniversary on the court, and he has had some competing inspirations for how he wants to run that court. How do you see him handling this coming term?

Steve Vladeck:

Sure. I mean, I think it's a dominant role.

This is John Roberts' court, and that's true not just in name. It's true I think behind the scenes as well. You look at the voting patterns in the most important cases the courts decide in, in the Trump-related cases, he's very seldom in dissent. And I think that's especially true when the court splits ideologically. It's going to come down to where the chief justice is, where Amy Coney Barrett is.

And that really is complicated, because you have John Roberts, who is a staunch defender of executive power, who probably is OK with a lot of the legal theories animating at least some of President Trump's actions, versus John Roberts the institutionalist, who cares deeply about how the Supreme Court is perceived, who wants the courts to still be venerated in the years and decades to come.

I think this term is going to be very much a referendum on him, and how he behaves, I think, will be very much the answer to where we are a year from now.

William Brangham:

And, Amy, how do you see him coming down on that, champion of a vigorous executive or someone who doesn't want his court to be seen as a partisan actor?

Amy Howe:

I think he will lean more — he was someone who worked in the White House as a young lawyer and worked in the Department of Justice. I think he leans more toward executive power. There's always the conventional wisdom that he is an institutionalist and cares about the Supreme Court.

But I do think, when push comes to shove, so to speak, he's more likely to be on the side of executive power. I think that this court will generally continue to move to the right. I think that there may be cases this term — we have not talked, for example, about one case that is not yet on the docket officially, but almost certainly will be. And that's the challenge to the constitutionality of the president's order on birthright citizenship.

William Brangham:

Right.

Amy Howe:

And all of the courts that have considered that the order have overwhelmingly ruled that it is unconstitutional so far. So, that seems like one in which perhaps the Trump administration may not prevail or it may be close.

But, in general, I think that the court will continue to move to the right.

William Brangham:

All right, Amy Howe, Steve Vladeck, so good to see you both. Thank you.

Amy Howe:

Thank you.

Steve Vladeck:

Thank you.