Ten important decisions remain before the Supreme Court, all of which will be published before the term ends at the end of June. Many of these decisions will have significant impacts on American society and jurisprudence.
Trump vs. United States
The most anticipated decision will likely be Trump v. United States, a spin-off case from the J6 case brought by the Biden administration's Justice Department against the former president. donald trump, who is also running to dismiss the head of the attorney general's office. The DOJ claims that after the 2020 election, which saw Biden as president-elect, Trump “sought illegal means to discount legitimate votes and subvert election results,” thereby engaging in “three criminal conspiracies.”
The alleged conspiracies were: “a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful function of the federal government by which the federal government collects, counts, and certifies the results of presidential elections b. A conspiracy to obstruct and prevent the process of the January 6th in which the results of the presidential elections are counted and c.
Trump filed a motion saying his actions were carried out in his official capacity as president, official presidential acts, and that he was immune from prosecution. He also argued that because Congress tried to impeach him for the same things. the questions presented to the court were “I. Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a president's official acts, that is, those performed within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility.” and “II. Whether the Impeachment Clause . . . and double jeopardy principles preclude the criminal prosecution of a President who has been impeached and acquitted by the US Senate of the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies to criminal charges”.
Fischer v. United States
A Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who was in the Capitol building on January 6, 2021 and was indicted on seven counts. His case before the Supreme Court involved the third charge, which alleged that Fischer “attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, namely, a proceeding before Congress, by entering and remaining in the United States Capitol without authority and commit an act of civil disorder and engage in disorderly and disorderly conduct.” Fischer's case questions whether the federal law that criminalizes obstruction of congressional investigations and inquiries can be used to prosecute protesters of the certification of Joe Biden's electoral votes that day. The case has far-reaching ramifications, as that charge was brought against many of the more than 1,300 Americans who were arrested for being at the Capitol that day, and if the court rules that it was unconstitutional for Fischer to be charged, that could erase this position also for many other defendants.
Moyle v. United States
At issue in Moyle is whether or not Idaho's anti-abortion law conflicts with federal requirements that hospitals provide emergency abortions. After Idaho criminalized most abortions, the state was sued by the Biden administration, under a law that requires any hospital receiving federal funding to provide “necessary and stabilizing treatment” for to “an emergency medical condition,” including abortion, according to the EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Work Act. Idaho said its law already provides for abortion if a mother's life is at risk and that its law should not be expanded to cover additional health risks.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
This case will determine whether a locality can make a law that prohibits homeless people from sleeping on the street even when no space is available. In 1962, the Court previously ruled that it is “cruel and unusual punishment” to make it illegal to be addicted to drugs. Plaintiffs argue that homelessness, like drug addiction, is a condition for which the defendant should not be punished. A ruling will determine whether cities can clean the homeless off the streets or whether they should be allowed to camp wherever they are.
Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton
A ruling in these two cases, outside of Florida and Texas regarding the laws passed in those states, will determine whether the social media giants can censor the speech. The laws passed in those two states addressed complaints that platforms like Facebook, TikTok and YouTube censored the speech of conservative users. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Texas law on the issue in 2022. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals locked Florida's version of the bill, which fines social media platforms for blocking politicians' posts, in 2021.
Murthy v. Missouri
In the event that Murthy, Republican attorneys general and social media users argued that Surgeon General Murthy and the Biden administration worked in coordination to pressure social media companies to take down specific content related to Covid-19. Rivals claimed the posts on Facebook, YouTube and X had been removed due to government pressure on social media companies. They say the posts were censored in violation of the First Amendment. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Bantam Books v Sullivan that informal and indirect government efforts to suppress speech can violate the First Amendment.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
The Purdue Pharma company was the maker of OxyContin, which was the nation's prescription drug scourge before fentanyl. A previous ruling found the company responsible for aiding the overprescribing and drug abuse of the painkiller. The company paid billions, but the Sackler family behind the company shielded itself from liability. This case will determine whether a bankruptcy plan can be legally structured to protect a third party from being sued civilly.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo; Implacable v. Department of Commerce
These cases tie back to the 40-year-old ruling in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should “deference to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.” Both cases were filed in January in response to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that required the herring industry to pay the costs of observers on fishing vessels. A ruling against Chevron, one of the most cited cases in American law, would overturn the decision and transfer power from the agencies to judges and Congress.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
A decision in the case of the SEC will determine whether the commission's internal administrative tribunals are lawful. A ruling against the SEC would require it to bring cases in federal court and could affect administrative tribunals for other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and others. George Jarkesy, who says he has been wrongly prosecuted by the SEC, is asking the court to rule that people facing civil fraud complaints from the SEC are entitled to a jury trial in federal court under the Seventh Amendment
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
The Supreme Court in this case will rule on the Biden administration's “good neighbor” plan and whether it should continue. The plan requires factories and power plants in the Midwest and West to reduce air pollution that drifts eastward into other states through prevailing winds. The Supreme Court in 2014 ruled in a separate case that an EPA regulation aimed at reducing interstate pollution was permissible.
English 
Español de Venezuela 