The Supreme Court still has about a handful of opinions to hand down before the end of its term, which will now extend through July.
They include landmark rulings such as former President Trump’s defense claims of criminal immunity, the validity of an indictment filed against more than 300 defendants on January 6, and the potential demise of a key administrative law known as Chevron deference.
Technically, the court still has eight cases discussed. But some of these cases can be merged into a singular opinion, such as the case involving Chevron and a set of challenges to social media moderation in Florida and Texas, so the expectation is that six decisions will remain in total.
The court will release opinions on Friday morning and now on Monday morning, missing the traditional deadline of the end of June. The last day of the term has not yet been officially determined.
Here is the full list of cases still pending in the high court.
Trump Immunity (Trump v. United States)
The justices let the first presidential debate pass on Thursday night before handing down the long-awaited ruling on whether Trump has criminal immunity for official acts while in office.
Trump claims his defense would require dismissal of charges in his three criminal cases that have not yet gone to trial, and Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court has tied up his Jan. 6 federal case for months.
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it,” D. John Sauer, Trump’s lead lawyer in the case, told the Supreme Court during oral arguments.
Michael Dreeben, who argued the case on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith, was seen in court Wednesday as the justices issued opinions, but immunity is not yet among those that have been made public so far.
January 6 obstruction charge (Fischer v. United States)
The Justice Department’s wide-ranging prosecution of the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack is still under the microscope with rioter Joseph Fischer’s challenge to an obstruction law that criminalizes obstruction, impediment or “corrupt” interference in an official process from the government.
Prosecutors pointed to Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election results that day, which formalized President Biden’s victory over Trump, as reason to use the charge against Fischer and more than 350 other protesters.
But Fischer claims the DOJ overreacted and misapplied the law to protesters, pointing to its origins in the Enron accounting scandal, set to deal with the destruction of documents.
The justices appeared wary of applying the law during April arguments, which could spell trouble for the government’s efforts to hold protesters accountable and for Trump’s federal election subversion case.
Chevron (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce)
Chevron’s deference may be on its deathbed.
The justices are weighing whether to overturn precedent, a bedrock of administrative law that gave federal agencies across the government broad authority to enact regulations.
In oral discussions, the conservative majority appeared willing to limit Chevron’s reach or reject it entirely, which would dramatically claw back the powers of the executive branch when Congress has not spoken clearly on an issue.
“You say don’t overrule Chevron because it would be a shock to the system, but the reality of how this works is that Chevron itself introduces shocks to the system every four to eight years when a new administration comes in,” said Judge Brett Kavanaugh . the Biden administration lawyer said at oral arguments.
Florida, Texas Social Media Cases (NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice)
Two cases involving the rights of social media companies remain before the Supreme Court, fraught with big questions surrounding online speech.
Tech industry groups have challenged laws in Florida and Texas that seek to prevent social media platforms from banning users for their political views, even if the platform’s policies have been violated. They say the laws — passed after the 2020 election when conservatives feared their views were being unfairly censored by major platforms — trample on the First Amendment right of private companies to decide what content to host.
Several justices expressed concern about the laws’ apparent overreach, pointing to nontraditional platforms like Gmail and online marketplace Etsy that could face unintended consequences if the justices ruled in favor of the states. Kavanaugh specifically raised that the First Amendment was designed to protect corporations from government overreach — not the other way around.
Homeless Tickets (City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson)
Homeless Americans could face new restrictions if the Supreme Court rules in favor of an Oregon city cracking down on public sleeping.
Judges are weighing whether cities can fine homeless people for camping in public if no alternative shelter is available to them, after the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, attempted to implement a law that would fine campers $295 per night for sleeping in public parks.
A lower court ruled that the law amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, which the city claims prevents it from implementing “common sense” laws to combat public camping.
With homelessness rates at record levels across the country, the justices’ decision could dramatically alter the lives of Americans without a permanent place to live. During arguments, several justices acknowledged the complicated nature of the issue.
Statute of Limitations (Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System)
Among the Supreme Court’s remaining final cases will resolve a split among the countries’ federal appeals courts over when plaintiffs can challenge government regulations in court.
Some lower courts — and the Biden administration — believe that the six-year statute of limitations begins to run when a federal agency issues its regulation.
But Corner Post, a truck stop in North Dakota, believes the clock only starts when it is first negatively affected by the regulation, a theory that would open the regulations to additional lawsuits.
Corner Post opened its doors in 2018 and is trying to challenge Federal Reserve regulations on maximum debit card “swipe fees,” which were issued seven years earlier.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
