Factbox-Top cases on the US Supreme Court’s docket

Oct 19 (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court is hearing a series of important cases during its current nine-month term involving issues such as President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, asylum, assault-style rifle bans, race, Big Oil’s role in climate change, Republican-backed voting restrictions, LGBT rights and more.

Here is a look at some of the cases being argued during the term, which runs to about the end of June.

BIG OIL CLIMATE SUIT

The justices wrestled with complex questions over whether to let local governments try to hold oil companies liable for the harms caused by climate change during October 5 arguments in a bid by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to thwart a lawsuit by officials in Boulder, Colorado. The companies appealed after Colorado’s top court allowed Boulder’s lawsuit accusing them of violating state law and seeking unspecified monetary damages. The Trump administration backed the companies. The justices voiced concerns about unduly limiting the authority of states to pursue climate-related litigation, as well as the potential to unleash chaos if local governments across the country were permitted to sue these companies. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

TRUMP’S MANDATORY IMMIGRATION DETENTION

The court will decide the legality of Trump’s policy that subjects millions of immigrants in the US illegally to mandatory detention during deportation proceedings. The policy is part of ​Trump’s pursuit of mass deportation. The justices took up the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling against the policy in a case involving a Brazilian national. The administration abandoned the US government’s longstanding interpretation of federal law that immigrants already living in the US could be released on bond while their cases play out in immigration court. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

TRUMP’S THIRD-COUNTRY DEPORTATIONS

The justices will hear arguments in December over the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to nations other than their own — so-called "third countries" — without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face. The court on September 29 let the administration continue the policy for the time being, putting on hold a federal judge’s ruling that removing migrants to third countries is unlawful. More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, according to human rights groups. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

ASYLUM AND TERRORISM

The court will hear the Trump administration’s bid to deny asylum to a ​man who was forced to prepare meals for an apparent separatist group in Nigeria — a case that could expand what officials ‌may deem terrorist activity under American immigration law. The Justice Department appealed a lower court’s ruling in favor of Nigerian citizen Izuchukwu Ozurumba. He was denied US asylum due to his work cooking for a group known as the Unknown Gunmen that US officials considered to be a terrorist organization. The lower court ruled that cooking did ​not qualify as "material support" for terrorism under the immigration statute. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

BAN ON ASSAULT-STYLE RIFLES

The justices will hear arguments on December 2 in a challenge to the legality of state prohibitions on assault-style rifles, giving them another chance to expand gun rights in a case that ​involves a type of weapon often associated with mass shootings. Lower courts upheld bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut on powerful ‌semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the US Constitution’s Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Gun rights groups and other challengers have said that Supreme Court precedents concerning the ​Second Amendment protect these firearms, which they described as in "common use." A ruling is expected by the end of June.

VOTING RIGHTS

The justices will hear arguments on December 8 in a Republican-led bid to revive voter restrictions in Arizona that would stiffen proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registrants ‌and purge state voter rolls of alleged non-US citizens. Republicans appealed after a lower court halted provisions of Arizona’s law because they were found to violate a federal voting registration statute. President Donald Trump’s administration has backed key elements of the appeal. Critics have said the Arizona measure adds extra mandates for voting ​that unfairly target Latino, Native American and student voters. Those groups tend to favor Democratic candidates. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

RACE IN STUDENT ADMISSIONS

The justices will consider whether to revive a lawsuit against a Maryland county’s lottery admissions policy for four elite public middle ​schools that some parents claim unlawfully discriminates against Asian American applicants. The case has the court delving again into the contentious issue of race in student admissions. A coalition of parents appealed a lower court’s decision rejecting their claim that Montgomery County’s policy violates the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

LGBT RIGHTS

The justices will hear arguments on November 3 in a bid by the Archdiocese of Denver ​and other Catholic entities to be exempted from a Colorado preschool funding program’s ‌nondiscrimination requirement. A lower court found that Colorado’s program did not violate ​the religious rights of the Catholic plaintiffs under the US Constitution’s First Amendment. The program provides ​state funds for preschools. The Catholic plaintiffs objected to the state’s requirement ⁠that schools receiving funding under the program give all children "equal opportunity" to enroll in preschool regardless ​of certain characteristics, including the sexual orientation or gender identity of students or their family members. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

DOGE TRANSPARENCY

The justices will decide whether the Trump administration can avoid handing over records to a watchdog group about its Department of Government Efficiency, an initiative aimed at slashing agency budgets and workers spearheaded last year by the president’s former adviser Elon Musk. The administration appealed a judge’s order for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge found that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

FEDERAL BAN ON HOME DISTILLING

The court will decide the legality of a federal ban on ​the home distilling of alcoholic spirits that was enacted in 1868 after the US Civil War ‌to crack down on liquor tax evasion. The dispute pits the Trump administration, which is defending the law, against challengers who argue that the home-distilling prohibition exceeds the authority of Congress under the US Constitution. More than a dozen Republican-led states have backed the legal challenge ​to the statute. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

EPIC GAMES SUIT AGAINST APPLE

The justices will hear Apple’s bid to escape being found in contempt ​in its legal fight with "Fortnite" maker Epic Games after the iPhone maker was deemed in violation of a ‌judicial order mandating sweeping changes to its lucrative App Store in the antitrust litigation. Apple appealed a lower court’s ruling upholding a decision by an Oakland, California-based federal judge finding Apple in contempt in Epic’s 2020 lawsuit contesting App Store fees. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

PEPSICO TRADEMARK CASE

The court will hear arguments in a bid by ​canned-coffee maker Rise Brewing to hold PepsiCo liable for alleged trademark infringement ‌concerning Pepsi’s morning energy drink "Mtn Dew Rise." Rise appealed a lower court’s ruling rejecting the company’s claim that the product name "Mtn Dew Rise" infringes its trademarks and creates customer confusion with ​its coffee brand. The date for the arguments has not yet been announced. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

(Compliled by Andrew Chung and John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)