The Supreme Court on Aug. 12 scheduled oral arguments for the fall in major cases, including a redistricting case that could affect the balance of power in Congress.
One newly scheduled case is a challenge to a Colorado law that bans counseling for minors that the state says aims to turn patients away from same-sex attraction. Another case looks at whether a federal military contractor may be sued after a U.S. soldier was injured in a terrorist attack.
The two new scheduling orders cover hearings set for October and November.
The high court said it will hear Louisiana v. Callais on Oct. 15, which is about the use of race in the redistricting process. The court already heard the case in March, but in June, it declined to issue a ruling without offering an explanation. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to issue an opinion, saying the court had an obligation to resolve the case promptly.
A federal district judge had ruled that a prior version of Louisiana’s electoral map discriminated against black voters because it provided for only one black-majority congressional district, even though blacks comprise almost one-third of the state’s population. The judge ordered the state to create a second black-majority district.
A group of non-black voters sued, arguing the map with two black-majority districts discriminated against non-minorities by engaging “in explicit, racial segregation of voters.”
On Aug. 1, the Supreme Court directed attorneys in the case to address whether the state Legislature’s decision to create “a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The 15th Amendment forbids the federal government and the states from interfering with voting rights based on a citizen’s race.
After the court-ordered changes, Republicans won four of the state’s six U.S. House districts, and Democrats won two in the 2024 elections. Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.) won the election in the newly drawn black-majority district, an elongated district that stretches from Shreveport in the northwest, following the Mississippi and Red Rivers, to the state capital of Baton Rouge. In the 2022 elections, Republicans won five seats compared with the Democrats’ single seat.
Counting Ballots After Election Day
The Supreme Court also said it will hear Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections on Oct. 8.
Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) is challenging an Illinois law that allows ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day to be counted.
The appeal deals with the question of legal standing, as opposed to the merits of the lawsuit contesting the state law. If the lawmaker wins at the high court, his stalled lawsuit would be reinstated and would continue its journey in the lower courts.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. A party must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify participating in a lawsuit.
If the lawsuit ultimately succeeds, it could open the door to more lawsuits being filed in other states against the late counting of ballots.
Eighteen states, including Illinois, accept mailed ballots received after Election Day if they bear a postmark from or before Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Bost argues that the counting of ballots after Election Day drags on too long and violates the U.S. Constitution.
“Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day,” he said in his petition. State laws allowing ballots to be accepted and counted after Election Day are preempted, or overridden, by the Constitution’s elections and elector clauses.
Bost argues he has standing because he incurs expenses in running his campaigns for an extra two weeks to keep an eye on the receipt and counting of ballots. He also argues he has an interest as a candidate in ensuring that validly received ballots are accurately counted, according to the petition.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief on July 29 supporting the congressman’s position that he has standing to challenge the state law.
Conversion Therapy Ban in Colorado
The Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar for Oct. 7.
In 2019, Colorado enacted a law banning therapists from providing so-called conversion therapy for minors experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.
Any efforts to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” are prohibited, according to the law.
However, under the law, therapists are allowed to affirm same-sex attraction or a minor’s desire to change his or her gender identity.
Licensed therapist Kaley Chiles sued in 2022 to overturn the law on First Amendment grounds.
Chiles argues the law chills her free speech by forcing her to avoid some areas of conversation during her therapy sessions. It also prevents minors from seeking therapy for unwanted feelings and behaviors, “even when the client desires and freely consents to such counseling,” she says.
Colorado argues the law does not directly regulate speech, only Chiles’s conduct as a licensed therapist. The state says these therapies are harmful and increase mental distress and thoughts of suicide in minors.
In 2024, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the law, finding that Chiles’s speech was only “incidental” to restrictions on her conduct as a therapist.
Contractor Liability for Terrorist Attack on Military
The Supreme Court said it will hear Hencely v. Fluor Corp. on Nov. 3.
An Afghan national and employee of a U.S. government contractor, Fluor Corp., carried out a suicide bombing on a U.S. military base in 2016. His actions killed some and injured many, including former U.S. Army Spc. Winston Hencely, who was left with permanent injuries that will likely require lifelong care.
Hencely sued Fluor Corp. after an Army investigation determined the company failed to properly supervise the Afghan employee, who was likely able to construct his bomb vest within the perimeter of the base’s grounds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Hencely’s claim against the company was barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act. That statute generally allows people to sue the federal government over things such as personal injury, but it contains an exception for combatant activities of the armed forces. Courts have held that the exception also covers government contractors.
The Supreme Court is expected to review whether the Fourth Circuit applied the Federal Tort Claims Act correctly.
IQ and Death Penalty
The Supreme Court announced it will hear Hamm v. Smith on Nov. 4.
The court held previously in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) that executing people who have “mental retardation” violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Supreme Court precedents allow courts to take into account IQ scores near 70, along with other evidence of intellectual deficiency. Alabama accepts an intelligence quotient (IQ) score of 70 or below as part of the legal test used to establish a person’s intellectual disability.
Joseph Clifton Smith, who received multiple IQ scores of a little more than 70 points, was sentenced to death in Alabama for a 1997 murder. An average IQ score is between 90 and 115 points.
After a series of appeals, a federal court eventually vacated the death sentence on the basis that Smith could have an IQ of less than 70, which is the legal benchmark for intellectual disability.
Smith’s attorneys argue an appeals court misapplied IQ scores in death penalty cases.
The Supreme Court said when it granted Alabama’s petition in June that it would look at how courts assess the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim of ineligibility for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia.
The Supreme Court is currently in recess for the summer. It will resume hearing oral arguments on Oct. 6.
Stacy Robinson and Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Aug. 12, 2025, in The Epoch Times.