The Supreme Court is scheduled for a huge week.
With just a few days left before the judges’ self-imposed deadline to finalize their opinions by the end of June, they have yet to release decisions in 14 cases discussed this term.
The court’s remaining opinions are expected to have profound impacts, but chief among them is the ruling on whether former President Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution.
The cases implicating the Jan. 6 defendants, the regulation of social media and the power of federal agencies are among the litany of questions that remain. The court expects to release the next batch of opinions on Wednesday.
Here are the five biggest decisions still unresolved as Supreme Court opinion season reaches its peak:
Trump’s immunity claims
Do former presidents have criminal immunity for official acts while in the White House?
For months, Trump delayed his criminal trial in Washington, DC, on charges of conspiring to subvert the 2020 election, appealing his claims that he is protected by presidential immunity.
Lower courts rejected his claim, but the Supreme Court, in oral arguments, appeared inclined to grant some immunity to former presidents, though perhaps a less extensive shield than Trump’s lawyers wanted.
That outcome would send the immunity battle back to a lower court. No matter what happens, it would probably help Trump to postpone his trial until after the election, when he hopes to win the presidency and suspend his prosecutions.
Even if the justices completely reject Trump’s presidential immunity theory, it remains unclear whether his case will go to trial before November.
With the clock ticking, some observers criticized the justices for not speeding up their decision even further, even though the court scheduled Trump’s appeal more quickly than in a normal case.
With no decision yet, the court’s potential final days of opinions coincide with the first presidential debate, scheduled for Thursday night.
January 6 obstruction charge
Was the Department of Justice correct in charging more than 300 defendants on January 6th with one count of obstruction?
Another case stemming from the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol seeks to disrupt the Justice Department’s prosecution of protesters who stormed the Capitol, where certification of the 2020 presidential election was underway.
One protester, Joseph Fischer, challenged an obstruction law used against him and hundreds of others after the attack. Fischer argued that the charge – which criminalizes obstruction, impediment or “corrupt” interference in an official government process – was improperly applied to the protesters given its origin: the Enron accounting scandal.
The justices appeared wary of the government’s use of the charge during oral arguments.
Siding with Fischer could overturn the already established sentences of many protesters. Although most also faced other criminal charges, 50 protesters were convicted with the obstruction law as their only crime, according to U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar.
A ruling in favor of the protesters could also lend credence to claims by Trump and his allies that the Justice Department overreached in its prosecution of the attack. Trump has promised to consider pardoning some protesters.
And it could undermine the Justice Department’s narrative that the Capitol riot was an attack on American democracy.
Biden’s Social Media Contacts
Did the Biden administration coerce social media companies into removing false or misleading content in violation of the Constitution?
A challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to curb misinformation in the wake of the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic could alter how the federal government communicates with social media platforms about false and misleading content.
Two Republican attorneys general say federal authorities violated the First Amendment by “coercing” social media companies to remove content the government considered potentially harmful.
The Justice Department has warned that if judges side with states, it could limit their ability to address issues of public interest, prevent threats to national security and transmit information. But during oral arguments, the high court appeared to lean toward the government.
Florida and Texas Social Media Laws
Can the government tell social media platforms how to moderate content without running afoul of the First Amendment?
Laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media bans have put the rights of social media companies at risk.
At the heart of each case are efforts to prevent social media platforms from banning users for their political views, even if they violate the platform’s policies. Detractors of the laws, like the tech industry groups challenging them, say they violate private companies’ First Amendment right to editorial discretion.
If upheld, the laws would transform online speech, essentially eliminating one-time content moderation decisions that differentiate platforms, potentially decreasing competition among small and medium-sized businesses.
It could also increase the amount of hateful, inappropriate or incorrect content online due to hesitancy to moderate material on their platforms.
Federal agency power
Should courts defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws?
On Tuesday, a Supreme Court precedent that bolsters the ability of federal agencies to regulate broad aspects of American life will mark its 40th anniversary.
When the judges return to court on Wednesday, they could put him on his deathbed.
The doctrine, known as Chevron deference, requires courts to accept agencies’ reasonable interpretations of federal laws when they are ambiguous.
Presidential administrations have invoked it to defend regulations on everything from fishing boats to cryptocurrencies to environmental protections.
Anti-regulatory interests, which deplore the growth of the “administrative state” in recent decades, hope that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court will use two of its current cases to regain power from the executive branch, overturning Chevron.
The cases have also attracted the attention of many issue advocacy groups that support Chevron and eagerly hope that the justices do not question the legal basis of their preferred government regulations.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
