WASHINGTON – O Supreme Court is heading into its final weeks with nearly half of the cases heard this year still undecided, including those that could reshape the law on everything from guns to abortion to social media. The justices are also still weighing whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the election interference case against him, more than a month after hearing arguments.
The court has heard 61 cases this term and 29 remain unresolved, with some decisions expected on Thursday and Friday.
Here’s a look at some of the top undecided cases:
Donald Trump is arguing that former presidents are immune from prosecution for the official acts they took in office and that the charge he faces on charges of electoral interference must be rejected.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted in civil cases for what they did in office, but has never ruled on criminal immunity.
The moment of the decision can be as important as the result. Trump’s trial in Washington, DC, may not take place before the November election, even if the court rules that he is not immune.
A former Pennsylvania police officer is challenging the validity of obstruction charges filed against hundreds of people who participated in the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump faces the same charge of obstruction of an official proceeding.
The question is whether a law intended to discourage tampering with documents sought in investigations can be used against the Capitol rioters.
Abortion opponents are trying to make it harder for pregnant women to access medication abortions. They want the Supreme Court to reverse changes made by the FDA that made everything easier to get mifepristone, one of two drugs used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States last year. This includes eliminating the need for in-person visits and allowing medication to be mailed.
Most Republican-led states have restricted or severely banned abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Wade in 2022. The high court’s decision in this case will affect abortion even in states where it remains legal.
The justices are weighing whether to uphold a federal law that aims to protect victims of domestic violence keeping guns away from the people who allegedly abused them. An appeals court struck down a law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. That court concluded that the law violated the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights and changed how courts must evaluate gun restrictions.
The most significant Supreme Court case in decades on homelessness centers on the question of whether people can be prohibited from sleeping outdoors when there is no space for shelter.
A San Francisco appeals court ruling said this amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
Leaders in California and across the West say the ruling makes it harder for them to regulate homeless encampments that encroach on sidewalks and other public places.
Advocates say it would criminalize homelessness, just as rising costs have driven the number of people without a permanent place to live to record levels.
There is a second abortion case on the agenda this year: whether doctors can provide this medical procedure in emergencies in states that banned abortion after the court overturned Roe v. Wade. Wade.
In a case from Idaho, the Biden administration says abortions should be allowed in emergencies where a woman’s health is at serious risk.
The state argues that its strict abortion ban allows abortion to save a woman’s life and does not need to expand exceptions for health risks.
The Trump administration banned bump stocks, a gun accessory that allows rapid fire like a machine gun, after they were used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history.
O ban is being challenged by a Texas gun store owner who says the Justice Department was wrong to reverse course and declare machine guns illegal after the 2017 Las Vegas massacre.
The Biden administration argues that banning them after the shooting that left 60 people dead was the right decision.
Judges could annul a 40-year-old decision which has been cited thousands of times in federal court cases and used to defend regulations on the environment, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protection. The decision colloquially known as Chevron calls on judges to defer to federal regulators when the words of a statute are not crystal clear. The decision has been the target of conservative and business interests who say Chevron steals the authority of judges and gives too much power to regulators.
Three cases remain unsolved at the intersection of social media and government.
Two cases involve social media laws in Texas and Florida that would limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. While details vary, both laws aimed to respond to conservative complaints that social media companies had liberal leanings and censored users based on their views, especially those on the political right.
In the third case, Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security. A federal appeals court sided with the states in concluding that government officials unconstitutionally coerced platforms to limit conservative viewpoints.
The Supreme Court controls the fate of a national agreement with OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma that would allocate billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic, but also provides legal protection for members of the Sackler family, who own the company. The deal has been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to intervene.
A business-backed challenge to a tax on foreign income is being closely watched for what it might say about a country’s fate. wealth taxan often discussed but never implemented tax on the wealthiest Americans.
Republican-led energy-producing states and the steel industry want the court to put the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision on hold. “good neighbor” plan to combat air pollution on hold while legal challenges continue. The plan aims to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states.
Another important regulatory case could remove the SEC It constitutes an important tool in combating securities fraud and has far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies. The court is being asked to rule that people facing civil fraud claims have the right to a jury trial in federal court.
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
