Some of the disputes are closely linked to Trump, others are cases in the next calendar that could become debatable if the Biden government reverses Trump’s policies.
While much has changed in Washington, one thing remains the same: the composition of the court – thanks to Trump – is now divided into 6-3 along ideological lines. There will always be a significant number of unanimous cases, and other cases in which strange companions break expectations. But in the cases that will most attract public attention in the future, including abortion, immigration, affirmative action and voting rights, conservatives are likely to come together and treat the Biden government very differently than they did the Trump administration.
On Friday morning, the judges held their regular private conference call to discuss an impressive range of substantive issues. On Monday morning, they will release a list of cases that they will accept or reject and will also issue at least one opinion.
Trump-related cases: taxes, Twitter, emoluments
In October, Trump’s personal lawyers went to court with an emergency request: they asked the judges to temporarily block a lower court decision that allows Trump’s tax returns to go to the Manhattan district attorney while the legal challenge is up. unfolds.
Last July, a 7-2 court dismissed broad claims of immunity from a state criminal subpoena seeking its financial documents. Ministers sent the case back to the lower courts so that the president’s lawyers could make more targeted objections to the scope of the requests. After further losses, Trump returned to the judges, who remained silent for more than three months.
Also related to Trump is a First Amendment challenge to his 2017 decision to block followers on his Twitter account. The case is complicated by the fact that the former president was banned from Twitter in the last days of his presidency and is no longer in office.
Other disputes refer to allegations that Trump violated provisions of the constitution that prevent the president from receiving an “emolument” or benefit from a foreign or domestic government. This stems from the fact that Trump, unlike other presidents, continued to maintain interest in his business and allowed those businesses to receive money from foreign and domestic governments. Critics said his properties could be frequented by officials to obtain the good graces of the now ex-president.
Elections
Pending before election day is a request from Republicans in Pennsylvania contesting a state Supreme Court decision that allowed counting of ballots received up to three days after election day.
The judges showed no interest in reviewing the last election, but the case offers them the opportunity to examine issues that could impact future elections, such as the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to review state Supreme Court decisions on state constitutions.
Abortion
Judges have considered a strict abortion law in Mississippi – blocked by lower courts – that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks that critics say it violates nearly 50 years of judicial precedents dating back to Roe v. Wade. Proponents of the right to abortion expect the court to deny the case, but fear that the rise of Amy Coney Barrett may move the court to the right in the area of abortion rights.
Another case concerns a Trump-era regulation that restricts family planning clinics that receive federal funds to provide referrals for abortion.
Immigration
On immigration, the court faces a challenge by state and local officials against the Trump regulation issued in August 2019 that makes it more difficult for immigrants to obtain legal status if they use public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and vouchers -home .
Next month, the court is expected to hear arguments about funding the Trump border wall, as well as its policy that requires non-Mexican asylum seekers to remain in Mexico pending hearings in the United States. Biden has already announced reversals in these areas, and it remains to be seen what his Department of Justice will do in these cases.
And as he took the oath, Biden promised to act quickly to approve executive actions. If the past is precedent, critics of the new president can act quickly to try to block policies. These disputes would eventually return to the higher court, a very different court, which reviewed the Obama-era programs.
On opening day, Jessica Anderson of Heritage Action for America warned that “conservatives are prepared to fight the destructive policies of the extreme left”.