WASHINGTON (AP) — In the coming days, the Supreme Court will face a perfect storm largely of its own making: a trio of decisions stemming directly from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Within days, if not hours, the judges are expected to decide whether or not this is the case Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and whether Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol could be prosecuted for obstructing official proceedings.
The court will also decide whether former Trump adviser Steve Bannon can stay out of jail while he appeals his contempt of court conviction for defying a subpoena from the House of Representatives committee that investigated the attack on investigated the Capitol.
The cases are among dozens of major disputes over abortion, homelessness, the power of federal regulators, the opioid epidemic and social media platforms that the justices must decide as the traditional end of their terms approaches.
Taken together, the three cases linked to the Republican former president could fuel narratives about the court and its conservative supermajority, including three Trump-appointed justices and two other justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have rejected calls to step aside taking from the Republican president. January 6 cases due to questions about their impartiality.
From the perspective of Trump and his allies, the results could provide more fodder for their claims that the Justice Department unfairly treated Capitol riot defendants. The riots have resulted in more than 1,400 criminal cases in which 200 people have been convicted and more than 850 found guilty of crimes. The outcomes of the cases could give them more reasons to disapprove of the prosecutions.
The court’s handling of the immunity issue has already drawn criticism, both that the justices have addressed the issue at all — especially given a unanimous federal appeals court ruling rejecting Trump’s claim — and more recently that they have not yet have decided on.
Even if the court limits Trump’s immunity, or rejects his claims entirely, allowing his election interference trial to proceed in Washington means “it is unlikely a verdict will be handed down before the election,” wrote law professor Leah Litman from the University of Michigan in The Washington Post. New York Times.
While the court moved more quickly than usual in hearing the immunity case, it has acted much more quickly in other epic cases involving presidential power, including the Watergate tapes case. Nearly fifty years ago, just sixteen days after hearing arguments, the court ruled that Richard Nixon must hand over recordings of Oval Office conversations 8-0, rejecting his claim to executive privilege.
In March, it took the justices less than a month after arguments to unanimously rule that the post-Civil War “insurrection clause” could not be used by states to remove Trump from the presidential election.
The three cases related to Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss highlight how often he has appeared in the court’s work this year, though he now does so as the Republican’s presumptive presidential nominee Side. Trump also played a role in two social media cases and even a trademark dispute over the phrase “Trump too small.”
The court almost always finishes its work at the end of June, but that will not happen this year.
The court will rule on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and return next week to decide what remains. Among the other cases yet to be decided:
– Can doctors perform abortions in medical emergencies in states that banned abortion after the court overturned Roe v. Wade? In a case from Idaho, the Biden administration says abortions should be allowed in emergency situations where a woman’s health is at serious risk, while the state argues that it is enough that the strict abortion ban includes an exception to protect a woman’s life to save.
– The most important Supreme Court case on homelessness in decades centers on whether people can be banned from sleeping outside if there is no shelter. A San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that such bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Leaders from California and across the West say the ruling makes it harder for them to regulate homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public places.
– The justices could overturn a 40-year-old decision that has been cited thousands of times in federal lawsuits and used to enforce environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer protection regulations. 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 long been targeted by conservative and business interests who say Chevron strips judges of their authority and gives too much power to regulators.
— Three cases remain unresolved at the intersection of social media and government. Two cases involve social media laws in Texas and Florida that would restrict how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate the content posted by their users. In the third case, Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go in countering controversial social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security.
– The Supreme Court controls the fate of a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, which would allocate billions of dollars to fight the opioid epidemic but also provide a legal shield for members of the Sackler family who own the company . The settlement has been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to intervene.
– Republican-led energy-producing states and the steel industry want the court to suspend the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor plan” to combat air pollution while legal challenges continue. The plan is intended to protect Leeward states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states.
– Another major regulatory case could deprive the Securities and Exchange Commission of an important tool in the fight against securities fraud and have far-reaching implications for other regulators. The court is being asked to rule that people facing civil fraud charges are entitled to a jury trial in federal court.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
