The Supreme Court is set to rule on a series of key issues before the end of the adjudication season, decisions that could transform the country’s political landscape in a pivotal election year.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide by the end of June on issues including access to a widely used abortion pill, the rights of social media platforms and restricting gun rights.
Former President Trump has been on the front lines as the Supreme Court considers whether former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for acts committed in office, an argument his team is making to protect him from a range of legal challenges unrelated to his recent conviction.
Here are five key issues the Supreme Court will be addressing:
Trump Criminal Case
Trump’s argument that former presidents enjoy criminal immunity for acts of official conduct is up to the Supreme Court, which is currently hearing his appeal in a federal election interference case.
The Supreme Court’s decision could affect not only whether Trump’s prosecution in this case, and the charges filed in Georgia and Florida, should be dismissed, but also whether those three cases go to trial at all.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared inclined to grant former presidents some immunity and leave it to lower courts to decide whether the specific charges against Trump fall within that scope.
The narrow settlement could give President Trump, who hopes to retake the White House after the November election and block any remaining prosecutions, a further avenue to delay the case.
An appeal of the Jan. 6 rioters could also help Trump’s legal woes.
One of the four charges Trump faces in the federal election interference case is obstruction of official business.
The justices who heard a mob challenge to the same provision in April appeared skeptical of the Justice Department’s use of the allegations.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have a major impact on the Justice Department’s long-running prosecution of those involved in the Capitol attack, while also weakening President Trump’s own obstruction of justice prosecution.
Social media
Several social media cases yet to be decided by the Supreme Court could have significant implications for freedom of speech online.
The rights granted to social media platforms are at stake in two lawsuits stemming from controversial laws regulating social media bans in Texas and Florida.
The law aims to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views, even if the users have violated the platform’s policies.
Tech industry groups argued that the law would allow the government to override the editorial discretion of platforms and infringe on the First Amendment rights of private companies.
During oral arguments in February, the justices appeared divided on the law.
The third lawsuit against the Biden administration threatens to upend how the federal government curbs online misinformation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.
Two Republican attorneys general have challenged efforts to curb misinformation online, arguing that federal officials violate the First Amendment by requiring platforms to remove posts they deem false or misleading.
Biden administration officials argue that banning the federal government from discussions with social media companies would limit officials’ ability to address public concerns, prevent national security threats and communicate information.
When it heard the case in March, the Supreme Court seemed cautious about imposing strict limits on communication between federal authorities and platforms about content moderation decisions.
Abortion pills
In what is the Supreme Court’s biggest abortion fight since the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices are set to hand down a ruling that could limit access to the widely used abortion drug mifepristone.
A group of anti-abortion doctors and medical associations have challenged changes made by the FDA over the past decade that made the pill easier to obtain, including extending the time during pregnancy when mifepristone can be used until 10 weeks and allowing the pill to be delivered by mail.
This significant case could affect abortion access in both Republican and Democratic states, where mifepristone is used in more than half of abortions nationwide.
During oral arguments in March, the majority seemed skeptical that the plaintiffs had suffered enough harm to have a legal basis to sue, focusing on this technical issue rather than conservative or liberal views on abortion rights.
gun
The Supreme Court has two big, though legally separate, gun cases on its books this term.
The initial case marks the Supreme Court’s largest gun case since 2022, when the conservative majority handed down the most significant expansion of Second Amendment rights in a decade, laying out a new standard for the constitutionality of gun control laws.
Currently, the Supreme Court is set to decide the constitutionality of the federal crime of possessing a gun for people who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
While the majority seemed inclined to uphold the provision during oral arguments last fall, advocates on both sides of the gun rights debate are watching to see whether the decision will clarify the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment standard more broadly.
The second gun case before the Supreme Court this term does not involve the Second Amendment, but instead considers the legality of a Trump-era ban on bump stocks that classifies them as machine guns and makes it illegal to own them.
Congress had previously made it illegal to own machine guns, but the Trump administration made the change after the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, in which a gunman used a bump stock.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared divided on the legality of bump stocks.
Federal Agency Powers
This month, the Supreme Court could repeal Chevron deference, a foundational precedent in administrative law that has for decades given federal agencies greater power to regulate broad areas of American life.
This principle instructs judges to defer to government agency interpretations when the law is ambiguous.
The provision has been cited in thousands of subsequent decisions, giving executive branches broad discretion to implement policy changes in myriad areas, including environmental protection and cryptocurrency.
But conservatives are increasingly seeking to get rid of this precedent as part of a broader attack on the “administrative state.”
Oral arguments drew fierce opposition from some of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, longtime critics of the precedent, but it’s unclear whether the majority is willing to let Chevron die.
