The Supreme Court is slated to hear cases this year affecting taxes, the power of federal regulators🍷, and other issues potentially affecting your finances. 

It will be the second year in a row that major cases could impact pocketbook issues. Last year, the court struck down Preside🐎nt Jo﷽e Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan; changed the 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:rules for initial public offerings, and prevented 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩💙网:😼local governments from keeping profits when they 🍎seize people’s houses for nonpayme♍nt of taxes. 

The high court will begin hearing cases on Monday and continue through the spring, and then release opinions as early as December, wrapping up in late June or early July.

Here ar🐎e the major cases the court is scheduled to hear this year:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureauও vs. Community Financial Services Association of America

In 2018, a group of lenders sued the CFPB over a rule that required them to stop attempting to debit a borrower’s bank account if two attempts had been rejected for insufficient funds. The lenders argue the rule should be thrown out because the CFPB itself is unconstitutional due to the way it’s funded. Unlike most feder🌃al agencies, which operate using money appropriated by Congress, the CFPB is mostly funded by the Federal Reserve.

Consumer groups have sided with the government. The National Consumer Law Center argues that striking down the CFPB’s funding mechanism would threaten all the consumer protection rules the bureau has put in place since its inception. The bureau has scrutinized financial and regulated companies, most recently pressuring banks to curtail overdraft fees amid a general 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:crackdown on “junk fees” charged to consumers.

Business and conservative groups have filed briefs in support of the lenders. Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group, urged the court to rule against the CFPB, arguing that its funding structure, outside of Congress’s control, gives the bureau an “unholy union of the powers of the purse and sword.”

Moore vs. United States

The case centers around the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which ⭕changed how the tax code treats overseas earnings by U.S. corporations꧑. As part of a broader tax reform, the TCJA imposed a one-time tax on overseas earnings.

Before the TCJA, earnings in foreign countr🌼ies were only taxed once they were brought back to the U.S., a policy that encouraged companies to incorporate ov🦋erseas, and to keep their foreign profits abroad.

After the TCJA was implemented, an investor who owned a stake in an Indian company sued the government, arguing that his one-time $15,000 tax payment was unconstitutional because it amounted to a tax on “澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:unrealized gains,” or the value of an investment that hadn’t yet been cashed out.

Should the court rule that taxing unrealized gains is unconstitutional, it could be a setback for President Biden and other Democrats who have advocated for a 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:“wealth tax” on the assets🥃 of billionaire🔥s in an effort to reduce inequality.

The case could have a “substantial impact on U.S. tax policy and revenue,” Daniel Bunn, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, and other foundation researchers wrote in an analysis of the case in August.

Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo

This case, centered around a herrin🎃g fishing company in Cape May, New Jersey, challenges the power of federal regulators. 

Loper Bright—allied with pro-business and conservative groups—argues the court should throw out the Chevron doctrine, a 1980s-era rule about how the Supreme Court should handle disputes over how much power federal regulators are allowed to exercise.

The Chevron doctrine covers cases in which Congress has given power to regulatory agencies, but wher🌜e the law is vague about exactly what the regulators can and cannot⭕ do. Chevron says the court should defer to regulators in those instances, as long as their actions are lawful and reasonable.

Specifically, the case deals with whether the National Marine Fisheries Service can require fishing boats to hire observers to make sure they’re following federal regulations. Conservative groups argue the Chevron framework has led to overreach by federal agencies, while Chevron’s liberal defenders contend that the effort to overturn it is an industry-driven effort that would give too much power to unelected justices over the elected branches of government.

Harrington vs. Purdue Pharma

This case 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:challenges a settlement in which the bankrupt Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, and the Sa♛ckler family who own the company, avoid liability in future lawsuits over its role in causing the opioid crisis in exchange for a $6 billion paym💜ent to states.

Murray vs. UBS Securities

The case deals with how much workers who report wrongdoing by their employers are protected from being fired by the 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which forbids publicly traded companies from retaliating against employees for whistlebl🌌owing.

Trevor Murray, a former strategist with UBS, a multinational bank, contends he was fired after reporting to his supervisor that company leaders had improperly pressured him to skew his research reports.

At issue is whether Murray must prove his firing was retaliatory, or merely that his whistleblowing “tended to affect in any way” the decision to fire him.

A decision in favor of UBS could make it harder for employees fired for reporting wrongdoing to sue their companies, potentially affecting whistleblower laws other than the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, according to an analysis by lawyers at employment law firm Seyfarth.