What does the Supreme Court still need to decide on?

S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman on today's show. From birthright citizenship to trans athletes and sports will run down a list of upcoming Supreme Court decisions. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. It is crunch time for the Supreme Court. Justices have a number of important decisions to make before summer recess in a few weeks. So what's at stake? Joining me to break some of the cases down is David Savage. He's the Supreme Court reporter for the L.A. times. David , welcome to the show.

S2: Good to be with you.

S1: Good to have you here with me. So listen , the Supreme Court typically leaves its biggest rulings until the last week of June , but this year is a little different. Talk about that. And what makes it unusual.

S2: Well , there were two big decisions that came down. Um , February , March. Um , I think the tariffs case is probably going to be the biggest decision of the term. You probably know that 6 to 3 vote that struck down President Trump's worldwide tariffs. Um ordered refunds. That's a big deal because the court had sort of open question was is there anything that the president could do that would go too far for this court? And it turned out there was that. So the tariffs was a big deal. And they had a decision on voting rights a month or so ago. It's a particularly big deal across the South because since the civil rights era , there have been , uh , black candidates elected in states like Alabama and Louisiana because of the Voting Rights Act. Voting Rights Act basically said you have to give some opportunity to the minority. And the Supreme Court basically reversed course on that and said , uh , part of Legislatures have a partisan power to draw districts and race cannot sort of factor in that. So that's a big deal politically. And so I think those two are sort of the most lasting effect. Um , the one really big one I think that's still pending is birthright citizenship. Yeah.

S1: Yeah.

S2: Now most people know what. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. Talk about that.

S2: I mean , what that one's about. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. Well , no , I mean , what can you tell us about that case and where it stands currently?

S2: Well , so that will be decided in the next two weeks or so. Um , this is also one of President Trump's. You know , the 14th amendment is , uh , very clear. It says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , are citizens of the United States. And it's been sort of an understood rule , both in English law and then in American law , that what counts is sort of where you were born , not who your parents are. The Supreme Court had upheld that in the late 1800s. Congress put it into the Immigration and Naturalization Act. But on his first day back in office , President Trump issued this executive order. It basically says anybody who , if their parents are here temporarily , like on a visa or they're here unlawfully , those children are not citizens at birth. And that's been challenged. It's been blocked. It's not gone into effect. And it sure looks like , based on the argument that the Supreme Court is going to strike that down , almost all the justices basically said that's what the Constitution says. And and you don't get to change it. So that will be , I think , a considered a pretty big deal to.

S1: Temporary protected status. Um , is also on the docket. Uh , if TPS goes down , it could cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitian migrants and nearly 4000 Syrians living and working in the U.S. could we see the end of TPS? I mean , what are the justices deciding on here?

S2: I think we could see the end of it in the sense that , um , this law says the administration and any administration can sort of grant this temporary protected status if it's too dangerous for people to go home. There's , uh , warfare or natural disasters or whatever. Uh , a lot. There's been 13 or 14 of these grants. But again , when President Trump's people came to office , they said they wanted to end those. So they've been canceling them as they come due. And their basic legal argument is that Congress put this power in the hands of the immigration Department of Homeland Security. And you , the courts , don't have any right to to change it. Um , the other argument is it's unsafe for these people to go back home to Haiti or Syria. And it's it's a cruel and wrong to just cancel them. They've been working here in this country. They've been abiding by the law. Don't abide by the law. They could be kicked out. But they're hardworking people who've been living here. And it. Sure. I think this one. The court sounded closely split. I found it hard to predict , like how that one's going to come out , but I think there's quite a possibility that five of them will say , right or wrong. This is up to the administration to decide , not us in the courts. Hmm.

S1: Hmm. That'll be an interesting one to watch for sure. Another one. The Supreme Court is also deciding on cases related to gun rights. You see it as an interesting test of how the court has typically ruled on the Second Amendment. Talk more about that.

S2: Well , there's a case that's sort of guns versus drugs. And , um , you know , gun rights basically say you have a Second Amendment right to have a gun , but since 1968 , the gun control laws have said one of the reasons that you cannot have a gun is if you are a user of controlled substances , an addict of drugs , and and the Supreme Court's got to not decide which prevails. Is it the gun? Right? Or is it the government's power to cancel gun rights for people who are drug users? And in the case before the court , the Texas guy was a said to be a regular user of marijuana. And so that's you know , that's that's not a particularly exotic drug. There are a lot of people who use marijuana. And so it'll be interesting to see where the court comes down , either on the side of gun rights or on the side of the government can say people who are drug users said to be dangerous and therefore they shouldn't have guns.

S1: The Supreme Court is also deciding on bans on trans athletes in sports. Since 2020 , anti LGBTQ activists and politicians have passed state laws banning trans girls and women from participating in sports at publicly funded schools. That includes at both the collegiate and high school level. What can you tell us about the two cases that the justices are currently debating with that?

S2: Well , the two cases are classic red state laws West Virginia and Idaho. Idaho includes college students. West Virginia was K-12. Both of them say the same thing , essentially , that , um , the test is biological sex at birth , not gender , and therefore transgender girls may not participate in a competitive school sports in those states. I think the great likelihood is the court is going to uphold those laws and say , yes , West Virginia can do that. Yes , Idaho can do that. And there's something like 23 , 25 other states like it , But what I'll be watching for and I think a lot of your listeners , is what about California? California has a different law that says gender is what counts. Um , it sounded like the court might just say , we're going to uphold these red state laws and not say anything further , in which case , if that's what they say , then California can continue on with its own , uh , law and policy , in which case transgender girls can participate in school sports. So we'll have to see how they write that opinion and decide that case. Mhm.

S1: Mhm. And now in those red states they would not allow there would be a ban on transgender girls participating in uh girls sports. Also in boys sports too.

S2: Well no they , they could uh , they could participate in boys sports. A a a transgender girl could participate. Um , on the on the theory that this young person was a biological male at birth and therefore he in that sense could play on sports , but not if she's a transgender , uh , girl who wants to participate in the women's sports. Mhm.

S1: Mhm. Okay. So now there's , there's also the question if independent government agencies will stay independent. Um , what is the Supreme Court discussing there.

S2: Well this is , this one has a long history back to the 1880s when they created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates. Congress has regularly created agencies with sort of nonpartisan experts. That's the theory of it. The Federal Reserve is a good example of people know , but there's a 20 of them. Some of them are recent , like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or whatever. And President Trump believes in many of the. I think the majority of the Supreme Court's conservatives believe basically that the president is the chief executive. He has the executive power to run the government , and that includes hiring and firing people. These independent agencies were given appointees were given fixed terms. And , as I say , sort of a mixture of Republicans and Democrats. I think the court's going to say that's unconstitutional. The president can fire all the heads of these executive agencies if he chooses , and just for because he doesn't agree with them politically. So it'll be a big change across the government. They did sound like they might make an exception for the Federal Reserve. I don't know how you how you write a couple of paragraphs to explain that , but but they will that they seem to think maybe the Federal Reserve needs to be independent and will make an exception for the Federal Reserve , so that to have to wait and see how they decide that.

S1: Very interesting. Okay , well , moving on to campaign funds. The court is also looking at limits on direct contributions to candidates. What can you tell me about that?

S2: Well , since in the 70s , during the Watergate era , Congress passed a whole lot of limits on political campaign money , including spending direct contributions to candidates. And there was a sort of in-between limit on how much parties could collect and fund their candidates. Most of the spending limits were struck down in the Citizens United case. The court made it. It made a distinction that's sort of hard for people like me to explain. I have to explain it all the time , which is that they say spending money on politics is speech , but a contribution to a candidate can be limited because it could lead to corruption. And the case before the court is about these big contributions to go to political parties and then go to support the candidates. In the past , that's been limited , but it sure looks like this is another one. They're going to strike it down. Strangely enough , the the original plaintiff was a fellow named JD Vance. He was he was running for the Senate in Ohio , and he led this lawsuit. The Republican Senatorial Committee picked it up. But basically the question is , can Congress can the law limit contributions to parties that go directly to candidates? And it sounds like they're going to say , no , that too , is free speech , uh , free spending and and that it can't be limited by law.

S1: You know , one decision that could be really consequential for California is a case relating to mail in ballots. What do we know so far?

S2: Well , you're absolutely right about that. The the California and 13 other states , I believe it is mostly Democratic states , but not all allow ballots to be counted. If you put your ballot in the mail , it's postmarked by Election Day and it arrives a few days late. In California , up to seven days late. Those ballots are counted on the theory that they were cast when they were put in the mail. And they're legal. It sounded like the court is going to rule that the election law is the date when ballots must be must arrive. Can't be late if they're not , if they don't arrive at the election office by election day , they don't count. And so that'll be a it sure looked like that's where the court was leaning. And I'm going to write and I've written before. It's going to tell Californians you better. If you want to vote by mail , you need to put your ballot in the mail early. Don't wait till Election Day so that that will that's another one that could cause an important because it's an election year that That's a big case to watch. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. Yeah. Especially since the United States Postal Service works a little differently now. Um , right. Yeah. Uh , you you've been reporting on the Supreme Court since 1986. I mean , how have you seen the landscape and the Supreme Court's behavior change over time?

S2: Well , it's been it's been a sea change when I arrived. The old guard liberals were still sort of in charge. Thurgood Marshall was on the court , a guy named William Brennan. Um , it was a court that was still a sort of , uh , court that came out of they still had Roosevelt appointees , and it was an older court , a lot of quiet justices , but very liberal. And , uh , when the year I started , Justice Scalia was the new justice , and William Rehnquist became the chief justice. Ronald Reagan's appointees. And Scalia was very smart , very outspoken , and changed the whole tenor of the court. And it's been for 40 years essentially been moving. Right. It was a sort of more conservative court in the 80s and then more conservative in the 90s , and now a strong 6 to 3 conservative court.

S1: Well , I've been speaking with David Savage , Supreme Court reporter at the L.A. times. We'll link to his reporting on KPBS. Org. The next round of decisions will come out June 18th. We'll be keeping up. David , thank you so much for your time and your deep insight onto this.

S2: Good to talk with you.

S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.