The Supreme Court is heading into its second week of its term and will hear major cases, including a racial gerrymandering challenge to South Carolina's 1st Congressional District and a whistleblower retaliation case.

Justices will return to the high court on Tuesday following the Monday holiday and hear three cases before concluding the week of arguments on Wednesday.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION OUTLINES RULES FOR INSTANT EV REBATES TO BOOST SALES

Here are the cases to be heard this week:

Whistleblower heads to high court

The high court will first hear Murray v. UBS Securities, which asks whether a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with "retaliatory intent" when a company fired him, in this case, the bank UBS Securities.

The case surrounds UBS strategist Trevor Murray's effort to review a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that overturned a $1.7 million jury verdict against UBS and parent UBS AG in his whistleblower suit. That appeals court found whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act require Murray to show the bank acted with retaliatory intent.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), who lead the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus, supported Murray's efforts in an amicus brief with the Government Accountability Project.

The lawmakers say the 2nd Circuit's decision will have "an outsized influence nationwide” because it's considered the "Mother Court" on securities law, according to the brief. They also say it may affect decisions by appeals courts that haven't yet ruled on the burden of proof questions in Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower cases.

A nautical insurance dispute

Later on Tuesday, the justices will hear argument in a maritime law dispute that began after a yacht owned by Raiders Retreat Realty Co. ran aground in 2019 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, sustaining around $300,000 in damage.

Although no damage was caused by a fire, the company that insured the yacht, Great Lakes Insurance SE, denied coverage because the yacht's fire-extinguishing equipment wasn't recertified or inspected on time.

Great Lakes wants to undo a 3rd Circuit ruling that a separate Pennsylvania insurance law favoring policyholders could take priority over the federal maritime choice-of-law provision. The insurer argues that the appeals court broke a nearly two-century-old precedent with its decision.

If the Supreme Court upholds the 3rd Circuit, any state's insurance or policyholder law could be found to override the commonly used federal choice-of-law provision, which could cause an unpredictable legal landscape for insurance claims.

Racial gerrymandering dispute threatens Nancy Mace

Justices on Wednesday will hear oral argument appealing a ruling that required the South Carolina General Assembly to redraw the 1st District because it was discriminatory against black voters, a case that could affect Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) 2024 reelection prospects.

The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil rights plaintiffs who say the map moved more than 30,000 black residents in Charleston to a neighboring district with a black majority. That district, which covers Charleston County, is represented by Mace.

Mace narrowly defeated Joe Cunningham in 2020 after he became the first Democrat to flip a U.S. House seat in the state in 30 years.

But with the Supreme Court aiming to decide the case before next November's election, her current Democratic opponent, Mac Deford, is hoping the Supreme Court will agree with the lower court's decision.

“That’s where they cut the 30,000 African American voters out, essentially silencing their voices and our democratic process,” Deford told a local CBS affiliate last month. “It’s something that Nancy Mace has benefited from. She benefited from it heavily last year. I think it’s equally as disturbing that she’s not denouncing it."

The Supreme Court had for some years exercised scrutiny toward the Voting Rights Act, a federal law that bans race discrimination in elections. But in a surprising move last June, the justices struck down an Alabama gerrymander in Allen v. Milligan, affirming a lower court's decision that the state violated the VRA when it drew congressional maps that diluted the black voting power in the state.

The legal issue in the Oct. 11 case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, is distinct from the Milligan matter. Alabama was found to have violated the VRA when it drew its congressional maps, while the lower court in Alexander ruled that South Carolina ran against the state constitution's safeguards against race discrimination.

Justices will also be examining the South Carolina dispute at a time when Mace says she's been under fire from "establishment" Republicans ever since she joined seven other GOP House members to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). "I've had a lot of threats about my fundraising," she told CNN on Oct. 4.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In response to the case, a spokesman from Mace's office, Will Hampson, told the Washington Examiner she has been "consistently been an independent voice for the Lowcountry."

"No matter what the district looks like, she looks forward to continuing to deliver results for the people of South Carolina," Hampson said.