From LGBTQ rights to executive power, here’s what’s on the agenda.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s new term kicked off last week with culture-war topics and presidential authority on the docket.
Topics on the agenda include free speech, LGBTQ rights, tariffs and broad executive power. The justices have 39 cases on their regular docket and have already sifted through nearly 30 cases related to President Donald Trump on the so-called shadow docket.
Here’s what to watch for:
Trump v. Slaughter
The court is reexamining a 90-year-old precedent that prevents presidents from firing heads of independent federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Reserve, without cause. Trump’s legal counsel argues those restrictions violate the Constitution’s vesting of executive power.
In September, the Supreme Court did allow Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, the head of the FCC, for the time being. They’ll hear oral arguments in December.
“This goes back to what proponents of the Trump administration believe is unitary executive theory,” said John Giokaris, an attorney at the law firm Rock Fusco & Connelly and a member of the Federalist Society. “Under the president’s executive authority, he can fire pretty much anyone from any administrative agency at will.”
Similarly, Trump wants to remove Lisa Cook, who serves on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Arguments on Cook will be heard in January.
DePaul University associate professor of law David Franklin is confident the court will overrule the longstanding unitary executive opinion, but thinks the Supreme Court sees the Federal Reserve differently from other federal agencies.
“The Supreme Court has gotten a brief from every living former Fed chair, Republican and Democrat, telling the court that in countries that have independent central banks where the president removes that independence, you get runaway inflation and economic crisis,” Franklin said.
Chiles v. Salazar
This case centers on a Colorado state law that bans licensed therapists from practicing so-called conversion therapy on minors, citing research showing the practice can cause severe psychological harm and even double the risk of suicide.
A Christian therapist named Kaley Chiles sued, arguing the ban violates her First Amendment right to free speech.
“There are some very strange things about this case,” said Carolyn Shapiro, law professor and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law. “She’s actually said she doesn’t want to practice conversion therapy and the state of Colorado said they are not going to enforce this law against her. So, one might wonder what this case is doing in the Supreme Court at all.”
Shapiro compared the case to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, also out of Colorado, which involved a web designer who didn’t want to build wedding websites for same-sex couples. The court ruled in favor of the designer, citing free speech.
