Summary: Supreme Court to rule on firing of Fed and FTC officials Court reviews Mississippi mail-in ballot grace period law Justices heard arguments on transgender athlete bans in Idaho and West Virginia The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to wrap up its current term in the coming days, with several major cases yet to be decided, including three involving Donald Trump's far-reaching assertion of presidential powers, two important election-related cases and one involving a crackdown by states on transgender athletes. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has seven disputes still to be resolved, and has set June 29 as its next day to issue rulings. Supreme Court terms begin in October and typically wrap up around the end of June, sometimes spilling over into early July. The Trump cases center on his moves last year to fire a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors and a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and his executive order last year to limit birthright citizenship — three actions that test the boundaries of presidential powers. The court gave the Republican president victories in two immigration-related cases on Thursday, and has backed him in multiple emergency rulings since he returned to office last year, allowing policies impeded by lower courts to take effect while legal challenges proceeded. The court, however, handed him a significant loss in February when it rejected his sweeping tariffs issued under a law meant for use in national emergencies. FIRING FEDERAL OFFICIALS The justices signaled skepticism during arguments in January toward Trump's bid to fire the Fed's Lisa Cook, a move that threatened the central bank's independence. No other president has tried to fire a Fed official since its founding in 1913. In creating the Fed, Congress passed a law that included provisions meant to insulate it from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only "for cause." The statute does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. Trump cited unsubstantiated mortgage fraud allegations — denied by Cook — to justify the firing. Cook, who has remained in the post while the case plays out, called the allegations a pretext to oust her over monetary policy differences. The conservative justices during arguments in December signaled they would uphold Trump's firing of Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences. Lower courts ruled Trump exceeded his authority. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration, urged the justices to overturn a Supreme Court precedent in a 1935 case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that has constrained presidential power by protecting the heads of certain independent agencies from removal. The court in recent decades has narrowed the precedent's reach but stopped short of overturning it. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration's arguments that tenure protections given by Congress to the heads of ⁠independent agencies encroach on presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution. The court last year let Trump remove Slaughter while the case proceeded. ELECTION-RELATED CASES Two election-related decisions are due as the November midterm elections loom, with Republicans seeking to retain control of Congress. The conservative justices signaled skepticism during arguments in March toward a Mississippi law challenged by Republicans that permits a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. That case could lead to stricter voting rules around the country. The administration argued in favor of the challenge. Mississippi's law permits mail-in ballots sent by eligible voters to be counted if they ​were postmarked on or before Election Day but received up to five business days after a federal election. A lower court ruled against the law. Trump, who has made false claims about widespread fraud in U.S. elections, issued an executive order in March to restrict mail-in ballots nationwide, but a federal judge in Boston on ​Thursday blocked its implementation. The court heard arguments in December in a Republican-led bid to strike down federal limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates in a case involving Vice President JD Vance. Some of the conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the challenge. The court's liberal members seemed inclined to preserve the restrictions. The dispute centers on whether these limits violate the Constitution's First Amendment ​protection against government abridgment of freedom of speech. A lower court upheld the restrictions. TRANSGENDER ATHLETES The court heard arguments in January over the legality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools including universities. The conservative justices appeared ready to uphold the laws. The states said the measures preserve fair competition for women and girls. Critics see them as part of wider efforts to restrict the rights of transgender Americans. 'GEOFENCE' WARRANTS The court heard arguments in April in a case from Virginia involving whether law enforcement's use of a "geofence" warrant to identify potential suspects based on data from cellphones near crime scenes ​violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment bar on unreasonable searches. (Reporting by Will Dunham, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)

Summary: ICC judges Kimberly Prost, Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou sue Sanctions challenged as exceeding scope of International Emergency Economic Powers Act Trump administration cites national security and foreign policy threats involving ICC On June 24, three International Criminal Court judges sued U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration over sanctions imposed on them last year, arguing the measures were unlawful. In the lawsuit filed in the federal court in Manhattan, judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin said the sanctions were designed to exert extrajudicial pressure with the objective of punishing and coercing the judges. A White House official said Trump lawfully exercised his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing the sanctions, which the official said dealt with "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States involving the International Criminal Court, including the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel." "The Administration will continue to vigorously defend the President's actions — protecting the national security and foreign policy of our country first and foremost," the official said. The State and Treasury departments did not respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration imposed sanctions on several judges at the International Criminal Court last year in an unprecedented retaliation over the war tribunal's issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Sanctions severely hamper individuals' abilities to carry out even routine financial transactions as any banks with ties to the United States, or that conduct transactions in dollars, are expected to have to comply with the restrictions. The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council. Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the U.S., China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognize its authority. The Trump administration's dislike of the court goes back to Trump's first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. JUDGES CHALLENGE LEGAL BASIS The lawsuit argues that the sanctions were against the law as they exceeded the scope of IEEPA and were not based on a genuine national emergency or extraordinary threat. "The Sanctions Regime ... is designed to exert extra-judicial pressure on these judges and their colleagues on the ICC bench by targeting their financial and other personal interests, with the objective of punishing them for prior judicial decisions and coercing them into prioritizing their private interests over deciding cases on the basis of the law and facts," the lawsuit said. "Being subjected to such sanctions under IEEPA is tantamount to the financial death penalty. Due to the sanctions, Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou are no longer able, among other things, to use credit cards; access banking services; use common online platforms, such as Amazon and Google; book travel; and in some cases, obtain health insurance," it said. The judges also said that the sanctions bar the submission of evidence and argument in any pending or future proceeding before them. Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis

Summary: Supreme Court issues five rulings amid major Trump cases Court's conservative majority includes three Trump appointees Court struck down Trump's global tariffs under emergency law     The U.S. Supreme Court's current term is rapidly approaching a climactic finale in which some of its biggest cases yet to be decided will test Donald Trump's aggressive efforts to expand presidential authority. The court issued five rulings on June 23, with more expected on June 25. Its annual terms run from early October to around the end of June, sometimes spilling into July. The court has not announced when it will wrap up its term and begin a summer recess. The court often waits until the end of its term to issue its most consequential rulings. This year is unusual for the number of major cases lingering that involve the critical issue of presidential power — and Trump's particularly bold use of it. The cases involve his efforts to limit birthright citizenship, fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, oust Democratic members of independent agencies and terminate a humanitarian legal status protecting hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants from deportation. BLOCKBUSTER CASES "It's totally normal for the most important cases of the term to come out in the last few days. What is unusual is that there are so many blockbuster cases," said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Sam Erman, an expert on the Supreme Court. "We've seen a lot of novel uses of presidential power since Trump took office, and that's produced some big questions about the nature of government and how presidential power works. So that's produced a very active Supreme Court term, and a big bang at the end," Erman said. Trump has pushed to expand presidential powers during his second term in office in domestic affairs and foreign policy, drawing hundreds of legal challenges on numerous fronts. The Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed during his first term, has shown it is receptive, backing many of his emergency requests to implement policies impeded by lower courts while litigation over their legality continues. Over the years, the court's conservative majority has increasingly embraced a legal theory called the "unitary executive" that places power over the U.S. government's executive branch solely in the hands of the president. But the embrace may have its limits. Of the major Trump cases on which the justices heard arguments, many court watchers have predicted that Trump has a better chance of vindicating his firings of independent federal commission members than his actions on birthright citizenship or Cook. "They have a view of a strong executive, but it's not an unlimited executive," Erman said of the conservative justices. "So when he is essentially advancing their project, he's pretty likely to win." The court is unlikely to be sympathetic that Trump, through an executive order, can restrict birthright citizenship, Erman said. The Republican president's order, a politically charged part of his hardline immigration approach, would upend a longstanding interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment provision recognizing the citizenship of people born in the United States. A REBUKE ON TARIFFS The court already delivered a major rebuke of Trump's audacious wielding of power, striking down in February sweeping global tariffs that he had imposed under a law meant for national emergencies. That ruling prompted Trump to lash out at the court in general and disparage the justices who ruled against him. Other major cases that do not directly involve Trump, including those that will impact elections, transgender rights, and state firearms laws, also remain to be decided. The court is weighing a challenge by Republicans in Mississippi to a state law that allows a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted — a case that could lead to stricter voting rules around the country. In a case involving Vice President JD Vance, the court is also set to rule on a Republican-led bid to strike down on free speech grounds federal limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates. The court's conservative majority in April gutted a pillar of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 civil rights law that aimed to prevent racial discrimination in voting. That ruling prompted a frenzied round of redistricting across the South to eliminate U.S. House of Representatives districts where Black voters make up a majority or near-majority, as Republican-led states scrambled to take advantage of the decision. The Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress in the November midterm elections. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. The court is also weighing, in cases from West Virginia and Idaho, whether to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams amid escalating efforts nationwide to restrict the rights of transgender people. On gun rights, the court is set to deliver its judgment on a challenge — backed by Trump's administration — to a Hawaii law that restricts the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, like most businesses, without the owner's permission. The court last week unanimously rejected a position taken by Trump's administration that had threatened the gun rights under the Constitution's Second Amendment of millions of Americans who use marijuana and own firearms. Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham