A number of controversial issues will be decided by the Supreme Court before the end of its ruling period, which could transform the country’s political landscape in a crucial election year.
By the end of June, the high court is expected to rule on issues including access to a widely used abortion pill, the rights of social media platforms and limitations on gun rights.
Former President Trump is also in the spotlight as the Supreme Court weighs whether former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for official conduct – an argument Trump’s team is making to shield him from a range of issues. legal issues other than his recent conviction.
Here are five key questions the Supreme Court should address.
Trump criminal cases
Trump’s claim that former presidents enjoy criminal immunity for official acts is now up to the judges, who are hearing his appeal in his federal election interference case.
The Supreme Court’s decision will impact not only whether Trump’s charges in the case, as well as those brought in Georgia and Florida, should be dismissed, but also whether the three cases will even go to trial.
In oral arguments, the justices appeared inclined to achieve some immunity for the former presidents, leaving it up to a lower court whether the specific allegations against Trump fall under that shield.
That narrow resolution could provide Trump with more avenues to delay his cases as he hopes to retake the White House after the November election and drop the remaining charges.
A Jan. 6 rioter’s appeal could also be beneficial to Trump’s legal troubles.
In his federal election interference case, one of the four charges Trump faces is obstruction of an official process.
When the justices in April heard a rioter’s challenge to the same provision, they seemed skeptical about the Justice Department’s use of the charge.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling could have profound implications for the Justice Department’s years-long prosecution of those who participated in the attack on the Capitol, it could also undermine Trump’s own obstruction charge.
Social media
Several cases involving social media yet to be decided by the Supreme Court could have resounding implications for freedom of expression online.
The rights granted to social media platforms are at stake in two cases arising from controversial laws regulating social media bans in Texas and Florida.
The laws aim to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views – even if the users violate the platform’s policies.
Tech industry groups challenged the legislation as a violation of private companies’ First Amendment rights, arguing that the laws allowed the government to ignore the platforms’ editorial power.
The justices appeared conflicted over the laws during oral arguments in February.
A third case against the Biden administration threatens to change how the federal government cracks down on online misinformation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.
Two Republican attorneys general have challenged efforts to curb online misinformation, suggesting that federal authorities have violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deem false or misleading.
Biden administration officials have argued that preventing conversations between the federal government and social media companies limits officials’ ability to address issues of public concern, prevent threats to national security and convey information.
When the justices heard the case in March, they seemed wary of imposing harsh limits on federal authorities’ communications with platforms about content moderation decisions.
Abortion pill
In the biggest abortion dispute at the Supreme Court since the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices are expected to hand down a ruling that could restrict access to mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill.
A group of anti-abortion doctors and medical associations have challenged changes made by the FDA over the past decade making access to the pill easier, including increasing the gestational age at which mifepristone can be used to 10 weeks of pregnancy and allowing the drug to be shipped.
The high-risk case could impact abortion access in both red and blue states, with mifepristone being used in more than half of abortions nationwide.
At oral arguments in March, the majority appeared skeptical that the challengers had suffered enough harm to have legal standing to present their case — a technicality the justices focused on in opposition to conservative or liberal beliefs about access to abortion.
Weapons
The Supreme Court has two important gun cases on its docket this term, although they are legally distinct.
The first case is the biggest gun case at the high court since the conservative majority in 2022 handed down the most significant expansion of Second Amendment rights in a decade, setting a new test for the constitutionality of firearms restrictions.
Now, judges must decide the constitutionality of the federal crime of gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
Although the majority at oral arguments last fall seemed inclined to uphold the provision, advocates on both sides of the gun rights debate are watching closely as the opinion more broadly clarifies the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.
The second gun case on the justices’ docket this term does not concern the Second Amendment. Instead, it considers the legality of the Trump-era regulation banning bump stocks, which prohibits possession of the devices, categorizing them as machine guns.
Congress long ago made owning machine guns illegal. The Trump administration made the change after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, in which the shooter used a butt gun.
At oral arguments, the justices appeared divided on the legality of bump stocks.
Federal agency power
The justices this month could end Chevron deference, a fundamental administrative law precedent that for decades has bolstered the powers of federal agencies to regulate vast swaths of American life.
The doctrine instructs judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law when it is ambiguous.
Cited in thousands of subsequent decisions, it provided the executive branch with broad freedom to implement policy changes in numerous areas, including environmental protections and cryptocurrencies.
But conservatives have increasingly sought to eliminate precedent as part of a broader attack on the “administrative state.”
In oral arguments, some of the Supreme Court’s conservatives, who have long been critical of the precedent, criticized it, but it remains unclear whether the majority is willing to put Chevron’s deference on its deathbed.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
