WASHINGTON — The High Council enters its final few weeks with nearly half of the cases heard this year still undecided, including cases that could reform the law on everything from guns to abortion to social media. The justices are also still weighing whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges in the election interference case against him, more than a month after hearing arguments.
The court has heard 61 cases this term and 29 remain unresolved. Some decisions are expected on Thursday and Friday.
Here is an overview of some of the most important undecided cases:
Donald Trump claims that former presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts committed while in office and that the indictment against him on charges of election interference should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted in civil cases for what they did while in office, but it has never affected criminal immunity.
The timing of the decision can be just as important as the outcome. Trump’s trial in Washington DC may not take place before the November elections, even if the court rules that he is not immune.
A former Pennsylvania police officer challenges the validity of obstruction costs filed against hundreds of people who participated in the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump faces the same charge of obstructing an official proceeding.
The question is whether a law intended to discourage tampering with documents sought in investigations could be used against the Capitol rioters.
Opponents of abortion are trying to make it harder for pregnant women to obtain medication abortions. They want the Supreme Court to overturn the changes made by the FDA that made it easier obtain mifepristone, one of two drugs used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States last year. These include eliminating the need for in-person visits and allowing the drug to be sent by mail.
Most Republican-led states have severely restricted or banned abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact abortion even in states where it remains legal.
The justices are weighing whether to enforce a federal law to that effect protect victims of domestic violence by keeping guns away from the people suspected of misusing them. An appeals court has struck down a law banning people who are victims of domestic violence from owning firearms. That court ruled that the law violated the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights and changed the way courts should review gun restrictions.
The Supreme Court’s most important homelessness case in decades centers on whether people can be homeless forbidden to sleep outside when shelter is lacking.
According to a ruling by the San Francisco appeals court, this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
Leaders from California and across the West say the ruling makes it harder for them to regulate homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public places.
Advocates say this would criminalize homelessness, just as rising costs have driven the number of people without a permanent place to live to record levels.
There is a second abortion case on the docket this year: whether doctors can do that to provide this medical procedure in case of emergency in states that banned abortion after the court overturned Roe v. Wade.
In a case from Idaho, the Biden administration says abortions should be allowed in emergency situations where a woman’s health is at serious risk.
The state argues that the strict abortion ban allows abortions to save a woman’s life and does not require an expansion of health risk exceptions.
The Trump administration banned bump stocks, a weapon accessory that allows rapid fire like a machine gun, after they were used in the deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history.
The ban is being challenged by a gun shop owner in Texas who says the Justice Department was wrong to change course and declare these machine guns illegal after the 2017 Las Vegas massacre.
The Biden administration argues it was the right decision to ban them after the shooting that killed 60 people.
The judges could do that undoing a 40 year old decision which has been cited thousands of times in federal lawsuits and is used to enforce environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer protection regulations. The decision, colloquially known as Chevron, calls on judges to defer to federal regulators when the words of a statute are not crystal clear. The decision has long been targeted by conservative and business interests who say Chevron strips judges of their authority and gives too much power to regulators.
Three issues remain unresolved at the intersection of social media and government.
Two cases involve social media laws in Texas and Florida that would restrict how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate the content posted by their users. While details vary, both laws were intended to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their views, especially on the political right.
In the third case, Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go in combating controversial social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security. A federal appeals court sided with the states, ruling that government officials unconstitutionally forced the platforms to restrict conservative views.
The Supreme Court will decide the fate of a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would allocate billions of dollars to the fight the opioid epidemic, but also provide a legal shield for members of the Sackler family who own the company. The settlement has been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to intervene.
A business-backed challenge to a tax on foreign income is being closely watched for what it could say about the fate of a welfare taxan oft-discussed but never implemented tax on the wealthiest Americans.
Republican-led energy-producing states and the steel industry want the court to sue the Environmental Protection Agency air pollution control “good neighbor” plan put on hold while legal troubles continue. The plan is intended to protect Leeward states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states.
Another important regulatory case could gut the SEC an important tool in the fight against securities fraud and has far-reaching implications for other regulatory authorities. The court is being asked to rule that people facing civil fraud charges are entitled to a jury trial in federal court.