*

Court rejects Ghislaine Maxwell appeal of conviction

*

Term opened with arguments in two cases on Monday

*

Three big Trump-related cases to be argued later in term

*

Court has backed Trump in multiple emergency decisions

By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court

began its new nine-month term on Monday with major cases in

store concerning presidential powers as Donald Trump probes the

limits of his authority under the U.S. Constitution and federal

law, while turning away a high-profile appeal by Jeffrey

Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

Before hearing arguments in its first two cases of the term,

the court rebuffed appeals in multiple cases. One of them was a

bid by British socialite Maxwell to overturn her conviction for

helping Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender,

sexually abuse teenage girls, as the justices steered clear of a

case that continues to hound Trump and his administration.

The justices also rejected Missouri's appeal to revive a

Republican-backed law intended to prevent enforcement of several

federal gun laws in the state and a bid by the conservative

activist group Project Veritas to invalidate on constitutional

free speech grounds an Oregon law that generally bans

unannounced recordings of conversations.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has now served in the post for

two decades, said before arguments commenced in the first case

that "I have the honor to announce" that the new term is now

convened.

The court takes up its first big case of the term on Tuesday in

a dispute over the legality of a Colorado law that bans

"conversion therapy" intended to change a minor's sexual

orientation or gender identity. That is one of a passel of cases

touching on hot-button U.S. culture wars issues, with others due

to be argued focusing on transgender student athletes, gun

rights and race.

But the major theme of the term promises to be the authority of

the president in cases involving Trump, who returned to office

in January.

The court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three

justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office,

already has backed the Republican president in a series of cases

decided on an emergency basis this year.

In the one case this year involving Trump in which the justices

heard arguments, the conservative majority handed him a major

victory that buttressed presidential powers. In that case, which

arose from a dispute over Trump's efforts to limit birthright

citizenship, the court in June restricted the ability of judges

to impede his policies nationwide.

The court has arguments coming in November, December and January

in three big cases involving Trump over the legality of his

sweeping tariffs and his moves to fire officials from agencies

set up by Congress with certain job protections meant to

insulate them from presidential interference. The latter two

cases are challenges to his actions to oust Federal Reserve

Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca

Slaughter.

The first case argued on Monday involved whether a Texas

judge violated the rights of David Villarreal under the

Constitution's Sixth Amendment to have a lawyer assist in his

defense in his murder trial. The judge prohibited Villarreal

from discussing his testimony with his attorney during an

overnight recess in the trial. Villarreal was convicted in 2018

and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

The second case concerned whether a federal court must apply

state laws requiring plaintiffs suing for medical malpractice to

obtain an affidavit from a medical expert stating there are

reasonable grounds to believe medical negligence has occurred.

Numerous states have adopted similar laws to tamp down on

frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

The case was filed by a Florida man who alleges he received

improper care for an ankle injury in Delaware, where he owns a

home. Federal courts can handle cases when a plaintiff and

defendant live in different states.

In other appeals rejected on Monday, the Supreme Court declined

to hear a bid by Sberbank, Russia's largest bank, to avoid a

lawsuit brought under an American anti-terrorism law alleging

that it did business with a group blamed for downing a Malaysia

Airlines jetliner over Ukraine in 2014.

The court also decided not to hear another bid by Turkey's

state-owned lender Halkbank to avoid fraud, money

laundering and conspiracy charges in the United States for

allegedly helping Iran evade American economic sanctions.