-
Some of the biggest Supreme Court cases of this period remain pending.
-
A matter concerning Donald Trump could become one of the country’s most important statements.
-
There is also an ongoing administrative law case that could potentially affect billions of dollars.
The Supreme Court has yet to hear cases that could affect former President Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution as well as the future of the presidency itself, the power of federal agencies that have existed for decades, and the right to abortion in a post-Roe -world.
Normally the country’s highest court wraps up its cases in late June, but court observers count about a dozen major pending decisions. Some of those expected rulings, especially those applying to Trump, could upset the 2024 election.
With that in mind, here are five key cases we’re looking forward to.
Trump v. United States: Trump’s immunity case
Just because of the implications for Trump, this was the most closely watched case this season. But the Supreme Court’s decision will likely extend far beyond him, potentially making this one of the most important cases in the country’s history. As Justice Neil Gorsuch said during oral arguments, the court can write “a rule for the ages.”
The former president has requested sweeping immunity from criminal charges that touch the outer limits of a president’s duties. Oral arguments illustrated that while Trump is unlikely to get everything he wants, some justices were receptive to his fear that leaving the door open to prosecution could hamper presidents.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, on the other hand, warned that the Oval Office could become “the seat of criminal activity in this country” if judges go too far in protecting former presidents from criminal charges.
Trump has probably already won, regardless of what the judges decide. The issue of immunity has slowed down the special counsel Jac Smith‘s January 6-related prosecution against him. It’s hard to imagine how Smith will get a trial before Election Day.
Fischer v. United States: A Potential Lifeline for January 6 Rioters
Judges could disrupt the prosecution of Trump and hundreds of others linked to Jan. 6, depending on how they rule in the case brought by a former Pennsylvania police officer.
Joseph Fischer’s lawyers argue that federal prosecutors took a post-Enron collapse law too far by using it to charge Fischer and more than 350 others in connection with the Capitol riot. The question is whether prosecutors adequately applied the law when they charged rioters with obstructing an official proceeding due to the fact that Congress was forced to halt the constitutionally mandated certification of the Electoral College results on January 6, 2021.
During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts joined some of the Court’s other conservatives in expressing skepticism about the Biden administration’s defense that the provision of the 2002 law at issue could be considered comprehensive law.
Smith’s team has separately argued that their case against Trump should remain intact, even as the judges limit what prosecutors can charge as obstruction of an official proceeding. As The Washington Post noted, some already convicted of crimes related to Jan. 6 have been released early ahead of a ruling in the case.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: A little fish could change American life as we know it
The federal government has been regulating everything from the environment to consumer safety for decades, based on Supreme Court precedent that judges must submit to agencies like the EPA and FDA regarding their reasonable interpretations of vague laws.
This administrative law principle, known as Chevron deference, is rooted in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron USA, Inc. against Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which could be quashed or curtailed. Business groups have fought for decades to destroy the ruling power. Depending on the outcome of the case, billions may be at stake.
The justices heard oral arguments in a case brought by commercial fishermen over a rule requiring them to pay for monitors to monitor potential overfishing. A lower court upheld the Atlantic herring rule based on Chevron’s deference.
The Biden administration has warned that completely removing Chevron’s deference could cause a major shock. Justice Elena Kagan said during oral arguments that 70 Supreme Court decisions and more than 17,000 lower court decisions have been based on Chevron.
Moyle v. United States: A major dispute over abortion rights in a post-Roe world
Judges are questioning whether the decades-old law that applies to hospitals that receive federal funds will replace Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The two cases in question mark the first time the Supreme Court is considering a one-state ban passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision, overturning Roe.
Idaho attorneys argued that if the Biden administration gets its way, the federal government will find ways to undermine state laws that restrict access to abortion.
“There are 22 states that have abortion laws on the books,” Joshua Turner, who defended the Idaho law, said at the end of his oral argument. “This doesn’t stop at Idaho. This question will come up in state after state.”
The Biden administration has argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the law in question, should override Idaho’s ban by allowing doctors to still perform emergency abortions. State law only allows abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger.
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted how some patients have been transferred by plane to states where abortion remains legal as a result of the state ban.
NetChoice LLC v. Paxton: Red-state moderation of social media
Republican-led states, including Texas and Florida, have tried to restrict social media platforms from moderating political content. Industry groups have filed a lawsuit to block the laws, arguing that tech giants have a First Amendment right to determine what they can allow on their platforms.
Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Florida law, which is the target of a related case, that would fine companies if they ban active candidates for office from their platforms. According to The Washington Post, Florida has also made it easier for users to sue social media platforms if they feel they are being targeted for moderation.
Justices left oral arguments predicting that justices across the ideological spectrum would strike down the laws, but the exact future of the Republican Party-led effort to punish tech companies based on the belief that they are biased against conservatives remains to be determined insecure.
Read the original article on Business Insider
