Washington (AFP) - The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court, after delivering landmark rulings on abortion, guns and the environment, began a new term on Monday packed with more controversial cases.
First up on the docket for the nation's highest court was a dispute involving the authority of the federal government to regulate wetlands under the 1972 Clean Water Act.
Among those asking questions during oral arguments was Ketanji Brown Jackson, 52, who was named to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden and is the first African-American woman to sit on the court.
The justices are seated in terms of seniority and Jackson, who replaced 84-year-old Stephen Breyer, one of the three liberals on the nine-member panel, was seated at the far left of Chief Justice John Roberts, who sits in the middle.
For the first time since the start of the Covid pandemic, members of the public were allowed to attend oral arguments and metal barricades set up last year ahead of the court's contentious decision on abortion have been taken down.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down the 1973 ruling guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion, expanded public carry rights for gun owners and curbed the powers of the government agency responsible for environmental protection.
The court kicked off the latest term with a closely watched case involving the Environmental Protection Agency -- Sackett vs EPA.
The dispute involves a couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who were stopped by the EPA in 2007 from building a home near Priest Lake in Idaho because the property abuts federally protected wetlands.
The EPA said the Sacketts needed a permit but they are arguing that the Clean Water Act applies only to "traditional navigable waters" and they should be allowed to proceed.
Environmentalists warned that a ruling in their favor would be a severe setback to anti-pollution protections enshrined in the 1972 Clean Water Act.
Anti-discrimination laws, voting rights and immigration are also on the docket of the court, where conservatives -- three of whom were nominated by former president Donald Trump -- wield a solid 6-3 majority.
David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the last term "saw the court aggressively exercising its newfound conservative power to upend long established precedents."
"This term, the court appears ready to do so again," Cole said."The court is not likely to act modestly or at least is not inclined to act modestly."
'Far-reaching consequences for democracy'
The court is to hear arguments on the use of race in deciding who gets to attend Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
Harvard and UNC, like many other US institutions of higher education, use race as a factor in trying to ensure a diverse student body and to make up for a legacy of racial discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics.
The court has ruled previously in favor of affirmative action but it has long been in the cross-hairs of the right and its opponents believe the current court will be receptive to their arguments.
Another closely watched case, which will be heard by the court on Tuesday, involves the seven congressional districts in the southern state of Alabama and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which aims to prevent discrimination against African Americans at the polls.
The civil rights legislation allows for the creation of Black-dominated districts to ensure they have representation in Congress.
But it is illegal to restrict their voting power by concentrating Black voters in a single district or by splitting them into multiple districts.
A congressional map drawn up by the Republican-dominated Alabama state legislature provides for only a single Black-majority district although they make up about 25 percent of the population of the state.
Another case before the court would give state legislatures more power to regulate federal elections and could have "far-reaching consequences for democracy," said Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU's voting rights project.
The case could change how federal elections are conducted and give state legislatures "broad unchecked power over federal elections," said Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU's voting rights project.
The Supreme Court will also revisit an issue from several years ago, when it ruled in favor of a cake-maker who cited his Christian beliefs in refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The ruling in that case was narrow, however, and the court is being asked this time to decide whether a graphic designer who declines to build wedding websites for gay couples is violating anti-discrimination laws.
