The Supreme Court is expected to issue another round of decisions on Friday, a day after the justices unanimously preserved access to the widely used abortion drug, mifepristone.
The nation's top court has less than 30 rulings left to issue before they depart for summer break near the end of June. Rulings on hot-button issues like abortion rights, gun access and former President Donald Trump’s criminal cases could have real implications for the 2024 presidential race, especially as President Biden and Trump prepare to face off in their first debate of the campaign on June 27.
Here are some of the major cases the 6-3 conservative-majority court is expected to decide in the coming weeks. Check back with Yahoo News for updates as the rulings come in.
🇺🇸 Presidential immunity for Trump
Case: Trump v. United States
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 25, 2024
The issue: Whether a former president has sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts allegedly carried out while serving in the White House.
What’s at stake: The Supreme Court’s decision will determine if special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal case against Trump will proceed in Washington, D.C. The former president currently faces election obstruction charges for his alleged efforts to overturn the results of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. The ruling will also affect two other criminal cases against Trump: a federal case related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago; and a case in Georgia stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges related to the three criminal cases against him.
Read more: Key takeaways from Supreme Court hearing on whether Trump has presidential immunity that shields him from criminal trials
⚖️ Obstruction charges for Jan. 6 defendants — and Trump
Case:Fischer v. United States
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 16, 2024
The issue: Whether U.S. prosecutors can use a federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants. The official proceeding, U.S. prosecutors argue, was Congress’s electoral vote to certify Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, 2021, which was interrupted by pro-Trump rioters.
What’s at stake: Hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who have already been convicted and sentenced under the federal law in question — the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — would have to be resentenced. However, according to the New York Times, every Jan. 6 defendant currently charged under the obstruction statute is also facing charges for other crimes, meaning the Justice Department’s cases won’t be completely upended if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendants.
Trump has also been charged with two counts of obstructing and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding under this same federal law. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of plaintiff Joseph Fischer, Trump could try to dispute the charges against him in the federal Jan. 6 criminal case.
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Read more: How the Supreme Court could upend the DOJ's Jan. 6 case against Trump
📫🩺 Abortion pill access
Cases consolidated into one: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Decided: June 13, 2024
Case argued: March 26, 2024
The ruling: In a 9-0 unanimous decision, the justices tossed out a lawsuit that challenged the Food and Drug Administration's guidelines allowing mifepristone, a widely used abortion drug, to be prescribed via telemedicine and accessed through the mail.
What it means: If the Supreme Court would have ruled against the FDA, restrictions on mifepristone would have reverted back to what they were when the drug was approved in 2000. But since the Supreme Court tossed the case, prescriptions will still be allowed during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and the medication can still be prescribed over telehealth visits and be delivered by mail in states that allow it. The ruling comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion established by Roe v. Wade. As a result of that historic decision, over a dozen states now have near-total abortion bans in place.
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Read the opinion here.
🏥 Abortion in health emergencies
Cases consolidated into one: Moyle v. United States; Idaho v. United States
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 24, 2024
The issue: Whether a federal law that requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide abortions in certain medical emergencies overrides state law in places with near-total bans on abortion, including Idaho.
What’s at stake: If the justices rule in favor of the federal government, emergency rooms in over a dozen states with near-total abortion bans would have to provide abortion care if necessary to stabilize a patient in certain circ*mstances.
Related: Supreme Court to decide if states can ban one specific type of emergency care
❓Gun access for alleged domestic abusers
Case: United States v. Rahimi
Not yet decided
Case argued: Nov. 7, 2023
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
The issue: The justices will have to decide whether a federal law, which bans people under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing guns, violates the Second Amendment. (The Second Amendment protects a person’s right as a civilian to own a firearm.)
What’s at stake: Perpetrators of domestic violence could have their gun rights restored. The case will also test the limits of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, which expanded gun rights. That ruling said that proposed gun laws have to be “consistent” with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, requiring the government to provide examples of obscure or defunct regulations.
Read more: How SCOTUS's decision on a law disarming domestic abusers could impact you
❌ Ban on bump stocks
Case: Garland v. Cargill
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Not yet decided
Case argued: Feb. 28, 2024
The issue: The Supreme Court will have to decide whether a federal ban on bump stocks, enacted by the Trump administration, is allowed under federal law. Bump stocks are rifle attachments that increase the speed at which bullets are fired.
What’s at stake: The question in this case is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority by enacting the ban on bump stocks. In the aftermath of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that killed dozens of people, the federal agency issued a rule that said rifles equipped with bump stocks should fall under the legal definition of machine guns, which have been banned since 1986. If the Supreme Court decides to do away with the bump stock ban, it could eradicate one of the few existing gun control measures in the U.S.
Related: Bump stock ruling could trigger booming rapid-fire marketplace
🗣️ Social media and the First Amendment
Cases consolidated into one: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton; Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Not yet decided
Case argued: Feb. 26, 2024
The issue: Florida and Texas currently have laws in place that prohibit large social media companies from removing posts or accounts based on a specific political view. The justices will decide whether these laws violate the First Amendment rights of social media companies. (The First Amendment protects free speech.)
What’s at stake: The Republican governors who enacted the 2021 laws allege that Silicon Valley social media companies, like Facebook and X, constrict the reach of conservative viewpoints. The Supreme Court will essentially decide if editorial decisions made by tech giants are protected by free speech rights.
More background about the case: Supreme Court hears landmark cases on free speech and social media moderation in Texas, Florida
📱 Social media and misinformation
Case: Murthy v. Missouri
ADVERTIsem*nT
Advertisem*nt
Not yet decided
Case argued: March 18, 2024
The issue: The justices will have to decide if the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when it urged major social media companies to take down what the government considers misinformation about the 2020 election and public health.
What’s at stake: This case will be a test for the Supreme Court to see how far federal officials can push social media platforms to censor certain kinds of content before such actions are seen as violating users’ right to free speech.
Read more about the case: Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the federal government can limit free speech on social media
