1. Suncor Energy Inc v County Commissioners of Boulder County
The case centers on a question raised in dozens of similar lawsuits: how can states, cities or counties hold energy companies accountable for contributing to climate change through fossil fuel burning.
asserted
companies → center → burning
In 2018, officials in Boulder, Colorado, sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, alleging damages to the state’s environment from burning fossil fuels.
asserted
officials → sue → fuels
ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy argued the lawsuit was incorrectly brought in state court instead of federal court.
asserted
lawsuit → argue → court
Justices are being asked to decide if the lawsuit can move forward.
asserted
lawsuit → ask → ?
The case could potentially end in a 4-4 split because Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, citing a conflict of interest.
uncertain
Alito → end → interest
2. Rhoney v Barbosa da Cunha
The case is a challenge to the Trump administration’s practice of indefinitely detaining immigrants who are arrested in the US and awaiting deportation.
asserted
who → detain → deportation
Previously, undocumented immigrants who had been living in the US could be released back into their communities on bond, as long as they did not pose a threat to safety nor were considered a flight risk.
uncertain
they → live → safety
But last year, the administration reinterpreted the statute to mean any migrant who entered the US illegally should be held in detention while awaiting legal proceedings.
asserted
who → reinterpret → proceedings
The reinterpretation has led to a huge surge in the number of migrants held in detention centers and disputes in lower courts.
asserted
reinterpretation → lead → courts
Department of Homeland Security v DVD
The case focuses on the Trump administration’s swift deportations of immigrants to “third countries”, or countries other than their own, without allowing them to contest their removals.
asserted
them → focus → removals
The administration has entered into a series of agreements with other countries that have agreed to safely accept immigrants who cannot be deported to their home countries.
asserted
who → enter → countries
But several immigrants say they were not given sufficient “notice and opportunity” to raise concerns about fear of torture or persecution in the countries where they are being sent.
asserted
they → say → countries
The supreme court will examine whether a lower court judge had the authority to pause the quick deportations and if the policy itself violates law, the constitution or international law.
asserted
policy → examine → law
Already, the high court handed Trump a victory in the dispute by allowing officials to temporarily deport immigrants to third countries while legal proceedings continue.
asserted
proceedings → hand → countries
The case is the latest example of the clash between states’ anti-discrimination laws and religious organizations’ right to exercise their values.
asserted
case → exercise → values
Two Catholic parishes say their preschools were precluded from participating in a state-funded universal pre-school program because it required them to sign a nondiscrimination agreement that prevented them from denying admission to families who do not align with Catholic values – such as same-sex couples.
asserted
who → say → couples
The Catholic parishes requested an exemption, which was denied.
asserted
which → request → exemption
They say it violated their first amendment right because it excluded them from receiving state benefits that were “generally available”, and other pre-schools received exemptions, such as only admitting low-income families or children with disabilities.
asserted
schools → say → disabilities
The conservative majority of the court has been largely sympathetic to plaintiffs in similar disputes, such as allowing a Colorado baker to refuse to create wedding cakes for same-sex couples.
asserted
baker → allow → couples
5. Viramontes v Cook County & Grant v Higgins
The consolidated cases serve as a vehicle for justices to expand access to semi-automatic firearms, such as AR-15-style rifles, by striking down state or local bans on the types of weapons.
asserted
justices → consolidate → weapons
Residents of Cook county, Illinois, challenged a county ordinance banning the sale, transfer or possession of any “assault weapon” – which AR-15-style rifles fall under.
asserted
rifles → challenge → which
Separately, a group of Connecticut residents challenged a similar state law that was enacted after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.
asserted
that → challenge → shooting
Lawyers in the cases argue that banning AR-15s is unconstitutional because they are common-use firearms.
asserted
they → argue → AR-15s
In recent years, the supreme court has expanded second amendment protections.
asserted
court → expand → protections
In 2022, the court created a new test, requiring courts and legislators to determine whether a gun law conflicted with the United States’ “history and tradition” of firearm ownership.
asserted
law → create → ownership
Republican National Committee v Mi Familia Vota
The case centers on two Arizona laws, one requiring voter applicants to provide proof of citizenship, another allowing election officials to remove people believed to be noncitizens from voter rolls 90 days before an election.
asserted
officials → center → election
Voting advocacy groups argue the laws, enacted in 2022, violate the National Voter Registration Act.
asserted
laws → argue → Act
Donald Trump has long called for federal ID requirements and voter roll regulations to address his debunked claims of mass noncitizen fraud in elections.
uncertain
Trump → call → elections
While a ruling in the case would not impact federal law, it could open the door for states to enact their own voter ID rules.
uncertain
states → impact → rules
The Aporia
