The end of the Supreme Court’s term is approaching. But nearly half of the decisions from the high court’s docket are yet to be released from a term that is likely to be a blockbuster in more ways than one.
Of the just under 30 cases remaining are decisions that will have drastic implications for abortion rights, gun control, immigration, climate and religious freedom, among other less high-profile, but nevertheless critical, issues.
Meanwhile, the high court is the subject of an internal investigation in the aftermath of a leaked draft opinion that rattled the legal and political world last month and revealed that the justices are poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed a right to an abortion nearly 50 years ago.
Political Cartoons
Perhaps the most highly anticipated decision surrounds a case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that experts say stands in direct opposition to what the Supreme Court decided in Roe – that states may not ban abortion prior to fetal viability.
Since the high court heard oral arguments over the case in December, seeming to signal a willingness to weaken or overturn Roe, experts have been clear that the federal protections established by the 1973 case may be nearing an end. But in May, a rare breach of confidentiality at the Supreme Court seemed to cement that the high court is poised to overturn abortion rights guaranteed by the landmark ruling.
In the draft majority opinion that surfaced in May, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the justices held that the 50-year-old decision on abortion rights “must be overruled,” adding that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” But the Supreme Court in a statement later said that the draft does not represent the high court’s final decision.
A major Second Amendment decision is imminent amid a streak of mass killings in recent weeks – from a supermarket shooting in Buffalo, New York, to a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen is a challenge against a century-old New York gun law that requires anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home to establish “proper cause” or a special need for self-defense.
The case comes more than a decade after the high court ruled that the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment, and with the Bruen case, it may extend that right outside of the home as well.
During oral arguments in November, the justices seemed to signal a willingness to strike down New York’s gun law in a ruling that would make it easier to carry a gun in the state – and perhaps beyond, just as a surge in gun violence in New York and elsewhere in recent months has reinvigorated the gun control debate.
The high court is mulling the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which concerns the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses and may spell major consequences not only for the Biden administration’s ability to make inroads on its climate agenda but even for any federal agency to make major decisions on its own.
The disagreement originated in 2015, after the Obama administration instituted the Clean Power Plan, which set goals for each state to reduce emissions from power plants. After multiple states challenged the rule, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked it before it could take effect. Then, the Trump administration repealed the rule, arguing that it exceeded the EPA’s authority, and replaced it with its own policy that offered power plants more leniency. The decision to repeal the Obama-era policy was later challenged, and on Trump’s last day in office it was vacated by a federal appeals court.
A group of companies and Republican-led states, including West Virginia, asked the high court to review the lower-court’s ruling. Since then, the Biden administration hasn’t taken up the Obama administration policy, opting to instead draft its own rule.
The end of the term is expected to be a consequential one for immigration.
One case, Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, concerns whether states may defend a Trump-era immigration rule known as the “public charge” rule, after the Biden administration declined to defend it in court. The contentious rule broadened the definition of the term “public charge,” which in immigration law describes those who can be determined ineligible for green cards because the government contends they will likely rely too much on public assistance .
Another case being considered by the Supreme Court, Biden v. Texas, concerns whether the Biden administration may end a controversial Trump-era policy that requires people seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico until their case is processed.
The Migrant Protection Protocols, often referred to as “Remain in Mexico,” was put in place by the Trump administration in 2019, returning nearly 70,000 asylum-seeking migrants to Mexico under conditions that have been criticized by human rights groups, which have reported instances of kidnapping, rapes and other crimes against the migrants under the program.
In one of his first acts in office, President Joe Biden ended the policy last year. But Texas and Missouri in April sued, arguing that its elimination contributed to an increase in migration and that the policy was improperly rescinded. A federal judge later ruled that the Biden administration must reinstate the policy, finding that the administration did not give adequate reasoning when it rescinded the policy and, in doing so, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs executive branch rulemaking. The case was fast-tracked to oral arguments in April after the Biden administration asked the justices to decide the case during the current term.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on two more cases related to immigration before they break for the summer – Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland v. Gonzalez – both of which concern whether non-citizens who are set to be deported but claim protection from removal based on facing a threat in their home country may secure a bond hearing within six months of their detention.
In April, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the city of Boston violated a Christian group’s freedom of speech by refusing to fly its flag outside of city hall. But two more cases concerning religious freedom await decisions in the coming weeks.
Like the decision on the city of Boston, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District concerns whether a high school football coach’s post-game prayer constitutes government or private speech. The coach lost his job at a Washington public high school over the prayers, which his lawyer argued are protected by the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and free exercise of religion. The school district, on the other hand, argued that the coach’s prayers posed a risk for the district, perhaps violating the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, among other concerns.
The justices are expected to weigh in over the coming weeks on another case concerning religious freedom. Carson v. Makin is a challenge to a Maine program that allows some students to use federal funds to attend private schools if they don’t have access to a public school within their district. But the program is not extended to private schools that require religious instructions, which those in opposition argue violates the Constitution. Although the case is specific to Maine, it may have implications for state or local governments beyond – perhaps requiring taxpayer funds to be used to pay for religious schools.