Washington — As the current term of the Supreme Court comes to a close, the focus now shifts to the opinions that will be handed down for the remaining cases, which include over a dozen hot-button issues such as abortion, guns, homelessness, Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan, and the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Starting in October 2023, this term follows two in which the Supreme Court made significant decisions reversing the constitutional right to abortion and ending affirmative action in higher education. The justices began this term with cases on administrative law and online speech, but it was the disputes involving Trump that garnered widespread attention and placed the justices at the center of legal battles with high stakes for the former president as he seeks to return to the White House.
The court has already decided one of the cases involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee: whether Colorado could keep him off the 2024 ballot using a Civil War-era provision of the 14th Amendment. The high court ruled in March that states cannot disqualify Trump from holding the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and allowed him to stay on the ballot.
"It's the most consequential term of my lifetime," said Victoria Nourse, law professor at Georgetown University, "because they're covering a gambit of things from guns to abortion to presidential power."
Here are the most significant cases that the Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks:
Presidential immunity for Trump
Trump v. United States
Argued April 25
The Supreme Court is considering whether a former president is entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for allegedly official acts taken while in the White House. Trump has argued that he cannot be criminally charged for his alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election.
The decision by the Supreme Court will impact special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump in Washington, D.C., where the former president has pleaded not guilty to the four charges he is facing. But a ruling could also have consequences for two other cases involving Trump: One, also brought by Smith, in South Florida involving Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents; and a second brought by prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Supreme Court Cases Update
During the final arguments of the term in April, the Supreme Court appeared to be leaning towards recognizing that former presidents should have some level of immunity from federal prosecution for actions taken while in office. However, there was skepticism towards Trump's assertion of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
Abortion Cases
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Argued on March 26
Less than two years after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of abortion. This particular case involves access to the abortion pill mifepristone and questions the lawfulness of the FDA's relaxation of rules for its use in 2016 and 2021.
The challenge was brought by a group of doctors and medical associations opposed to abortion rights, arguing that the FDA exceeded its authority by making it easier to obtain mifepristone.
During the arguments, the justices appeared inclined to uphold access to the drug. Some expressed doubts about the legal standing of the medical groups and physicians to bring the lawsuit. If the court determines that the challengers lack standing, the case may be dismissed.
Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States
Additional Case Update
Argued on April 24
This set of cases delves into the intersection between Idaho's near-total prohibition on abortion and a federal statute mandating Medicare-participating hospitals to administer essential stabilizing treatment to a mother facing serious health risks.
The Biden administration contends that under specific circumstances, this stabilizing treatment may involve abortion care. However, Idaho legislators argue that the administration is leveraging the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to nullify state abortion restrictions implemented post the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
During the hearings, the justices seemed split on whether federal law mandates physicians in states with strict abortion bans to provide pregnancy terminations in certain medical emergencies.
Social media and the First Amendment
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton
Arguments presented on Feb. 26
These two cases revolve around analogous laws enacted in Florida and Texas that impose regulations on social media companies and their content moderation policies. Enacted in 2021, the Florida and Texas laws were a response to allegations by Republicans that social media firms were suppressing conservative viewpoints.
The crux of the matter in these legal challenges, brought forth by Internet trade associations, is whether the states' constraints on social media companies infringe upon the First Amendment. During the February hearings, the justices displayed doubt about whether the Constitution permits states to dictate how these companies manage the content posted on their platforms.
Murthy v. Missouri
Arguments presented on March 18
Supreme Court Case Examines Biden Administration's Pressure on Social Media Platforms
In a recent legal battle regarding the First Amendment and social media, the Supreme Court is deliberating on whether the Biden administration violated the free speech rights of a group of social media users. The administration allegedly pressured platforms to remove content that it deemed as spreading misinformation about the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic.
This case raises questions about the extent to which federal officials can influence platforms to take down or limit posts without infringing on constitutional rights. During the court session in March, some justices expressed concerns about restricting the administration's interactions with social media platforms and the potential impact on officials' ability to address specific issues.
The Scope of Regulatory Authority of Federal Agencies
Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
Arguments Presented on Jan. 17
These cases represent a significant challenge to the authority of federal agencies, urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1984 ruling in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. The Chevron deference doctrine established in that case requires judges to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes if it is deemed reasonable.
For years, the conservative legal movement has criticized the Chevron doctrine, arguing that it grants excessive power to federal officials in formulating regulations that impact various sectors such as the environment, public health, and the workforce.
During the hearings in January, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to limit agencies' discretion in interpreting laws enacted by Congress.
Garland v. Cargill
Arguments Presented on Feb. 28
A Texas man who was forced to surrender his bump stocks to comply with a ban implemented during the Trump administration is at the center of a dispute. The case revolves around whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had the authority to outlaw bump stocks, which are attachments to semi-automatic rifles that increase their rate of fire. This issue arose following the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, where the shooter utilized semi-automatic weapons equipped with bump stocks. In response, the ATF classified a rifle with a bump stock as a machine gun under federal law, which has been restricted since 1986.
The Supreme Court justices deliberated on the case in February, grappling with the decision of whether to uphold the ban on bump stocks.
Obstruction charge for Jan. 6 defendants
Fischer v. U.S.
Argued April 16
Following the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, over 1,300 individuals have faced charges, with more than 350 accused of violating a federal law that prohibits "corruptly" obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. The Supreme Court is now examining the Justice Department's application of this law, enacted after the Enron scandal, to the events of Jan. 6.
The outcome of the case could affect the Jan. 6 defendants who have already been convicted of the obstruction offense or pleaded guilty, as a decision rejecting prosecutors' broad reading of the measure could lead to new trials or lighter sentences. The ruling could also impact the federal prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., as he is charged with one count of obstructing an official proceeding — Congress' counting of Electoral College votes — and one count of conspiring to obstruct the proceeding, as well as two other charges.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all four counts.
During arguments in April, the court appeared divided over prosecutors' use of the obstruction statute.
Funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association
Argued Oct. 3
On the second day of the term, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism.
The question in the legal battle is whether the way in which the CFPB receives its funding violates the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. The dispute is one of several that has been brought since the CFPB's creation in 2010 that has sought to weaken the agency.
But during the arguments, several of the justices expressed skepticism that the CFPB's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.
Federal firearms prohibition for alleged domestic abusers
United States v. Rahimi
Argued Nov. 7
Supreme Court Cases Update
This case presented the Supreme Court with its first opportunity to clarify its June 2022 decision that expanded the scope of the Second Amendment. In that ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices laid out a new standard which says gun laws must fit with the nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation to pass constitutional muster. To demonstrate that, the government must put forth laws that are analogous to the modern-day measure at issue.
This dispute involves a 1994 law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. A federal appeals court struck down the 30-year-old law under the Supreme Court's new test, and the justices considered whether the prohibition violates the Second Amendment.
The justices appeared inclined to leave in place the law stripping alleged domestic abusers of their firearms, and several suggested that those deemed dangerous to society could be disarmed.
Racial gerrymandering
Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP
Argued Oct. 11
At issue in this case are the lines of South Carolina's Congressional District 1, which a lower court struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The district, represented by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, was redrawn after the 2020 Census to produce a safer Republican district. To achieve that goal, state GOP officials moved more than 30,000 Black voters from Congressional District 1 into a neighboring district.
The Supreme Court weighed whether race or politics was the predominant factor during the mapmaking process, though the conservative justices appeared likely to leave the GOP-drawn lines intact.
Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
Argued Dec. 4
This court fight arose from a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, which shields the Sackler family from civil lawsuits stemming from the opioid crisis. The Sacklers owned and operated Purdue during the height of the opioid epidemic, and after Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019, the family agreed to contribute $6 billion for abatement of the opioid crisis in exchange for the legal shield.
The bankruptcy plan was approved by 95% of victims, but several states, Canadian municipalities and a smaller group of individuals opposed it because of the protections for the Sacklers. The case involves whether those dissenters should be bound by the releases and therefore unable to pursue their own opioid-related lawsuits against the Sacklers, who never filed for bankruptcy protection.
The Justice Department objects to Purdue's bankruptcy plan and has argued that the so-called third party releases are not allowed under federal bankruptcy code.
Some of the justices during arguments raised concerns about the consequences of a decision unraveling Purdue's bankruptcy agreement, especially for victims and their family members who stand to benefit from it. Others, meanwhile, noted that the plan deprives the holdouts of the ability to hold the Sacklers accountable in civil court, and said the family is benefitting from bankruptcy protection without ever declaring bankruptcy.
A provision of Trump's tax reform package
Moore v. U.S.
Argued Dec. 5
This case involves a challenge to an obscure provision of Republicans' sweeping tax reform package signed into law by Trump in 2017. The mandatory repatriation tax is a one-time tax targeting U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations and requires them to pay a levy on their proportionate share of the company's earnings.
The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years. A couple from Washington state challenged the tax as impermissible under the 16th Amendment, but the Supreme Court appeared likely to leave it in place.
EPA rule for addressing harmful smog
Ohio v. EPA; Kinder Morgan, Inc. v. EPA; America Forest and Paper Association v. EPA; and U.S. Steel Corp v. EPA
Argued Feb. 21
In these cases, which were heard together, the court is considering whether to halt an environmental rule from the Biden administration that aims to curb air pollution and address harmful smog that travels from certain states into others.
The dispute stems from a plan announced by the EPA in 2023 that established an emissions-control program for large industrial sources like power plants and factories in 23 states. The EPA said emissions from those facilities were contributing significantly to smog pollution in downwind states.
Three GOP-led states, energy companies and industry groups challenged the initiative, and the Supreme Court seemed likely to halt the "good neighbor" rule during arguments in February.
Anti-camping ordinances
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
Argued April 22
Arising from the ordinances of an Oregon city that prohibit public camping, a legal case questions whether it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment to penalize homeless individuals with civil citations for camping on public property when they have no alternative shelter.
This conflict represents one of the most important issues related to homelessness to reach the Supreme Court in decades, and the ruling could influence how cities and states address the increasing rates of homelessness as makeshift camps emerge on public land.
During arguments in April, the justices discussed the constitutionality of laws against camping and seemed split on whether the regulations of Grants Pass were overly strict.
