N※N

Upcoming Supreme Court rulings: These key cases remain before current term ends

Upcoming Supreme Court Rulings: Key Cases to Watch as the Term Winds Down

As the Supreme Court's current term approaches its conclusion, typically by the end of June, a slate of high-stakes cases remains unresolved, poised to deliver rulings that could reshape American law, politics, and society. With decisions expected in the coming weeks, these cases span a wide array of issues, from presidential immunity and abortion rights to social media regulation, gun control, and administrative power. The court's conservative majority, solidified in recent years, has already issued landmark opinions this term, but the pending docket includes some of the most contentious matters. Below, we delve into the details of these key cases, exploring their backgrounds, the arguments presented, and the potential ramifications.

One of the most closely watched cases is *Trump v. United States*, which centers on former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Stemming from special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, the case asks whether a former president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office. Trump argues that absolute immunity is necessary to protect the presidency from politically motivated attacks, citing historical precedents and the need for bold executive action without fear of retribution. Prosecutors, however, contend that no one is above the law, and immunity should not extend to criminal acts like those alleged in the January 6 Capitol riot. During oral arguments in April, justices appeared divided, with some conservatives expressing sympathy for limited immunity, while others worried about setting a dangerous precedent. A ruling in Trump's favor could delay or derail his federal trials, potentially influencing the 2024 election. Conversely, a rejection of broad immunity would affirm accountability for presidential misconduct, echoing the court's Watergate-era decisions. This case's outcome could redefine the boundaries of executive power for generations.

In the realm of reproductive rights, two abortion-related cases loom large. First, *Idaho v. United States* pits state abortion bans against federal emergency medical requirements. Idaho's strict law prohibits abortions except in life-threatening situations, but the Biden administration argues it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates stabilizing care in emergencies, including abortions if necessary. Idaho officials claim the federal law doesn't preempt state restrictions post-*Dobbs*, the 2022 decision overturning *Roe v. Wade*. Oral arguments revealed skepticism from conservative justices toward the federal position, potentially allowing states more leeway to enforce bans even in medical crises. A decision upholding Idaho's law could endanger women's health in conservative states, while a win for the federal government might carve out protections for emergency abortions nationwide.

The second abortion case, *Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine*, challenges the FDA's approval and expanded access to mifepristone, a key medication used in about half of U.S. abortions. Anti-abortion doctors and groups argue the FDA overstepped by relaxing restrictions, such as allowing mail-order access, without sufficient safety data. The FDA defends its decisions as based on decades of evidence showing the drug's safety. Justices seemed inclined to reject the challenge on standing grounds, questioning whether the plaintiffs were truly harmed. If the court sides with the challengers, it could restrict access to medication abortion, affecting millions and intensifying the post-*Dobbs* landscape. A ruling preserving FDA authority would maintain the status quo, underscoring the agency's role in drug regulation amid political pressures.

Shifting to free speech and technology, *Murthy v. Missouri* (combined with *NetChoice v. Paxton* and related cases) addresses government influence on social media content moderation. In *Murthy*, Republican-led states accuse the Biden administration of coercing platforms like Facebook and Twitter to suppress conservative viewpoints on COVID-19 and elections. The government insists its communications were persuasive, not coercive, aimed at combating misinformation. Oral arguments highlighted concerns over First Amendment violations, with justices grappling with the line between government advocacy and censorship. A ruling against the administration could limit federal efforts to address online harms, while upholding it might empower officials to pressure tech companies. Meanwhile, the NetChoice cases involve Texas and Florida laws restricting platforms' moderation of political speech. Tech groups argue these laws infringe on companies' editorial rights, treating them like publishers. States defend them as protections against viewpoint discrimination. The court's decision could redefine social media's role in public discourse, potentially forcing platforms to host more controversial content or affirming their autonomy.

Gun rights advocates are eyeing *United States v. Rahimi*, which tests the constitutionality of a federal law barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms. Zackey Rahimi, subject to a restraining order, challenges the ban under the 2022 *Bruen* decision, which requires gun laws to align with historical traditions. The government argues that disarming dangerous individuals has deep roots in American history. During arguments, even conservative justices appeared supportive of the law, distinguishing it from broader restrictions. Upholding the ban would preserve a key public safety measure, while striking it down could unravel numerous gun control statutes, expanding Second Amendment protections amid rising violence.

On homelessness, *City of Grants Pass v. Johnson* examines whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors when no shelter is available. Grants Pass, Oregon, enforces anti-camping ordinances, fining or jailing homeless individuals. Plaintiffs argue this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, especially in areas with shelter shortages. The city contends that such laws are necessary for public health and safety. Oral arguments suggested a conservative lean toward allowing enforcement, potentially reversing lower court protections. A ruling for the city could embolden municipalities to clear encampments, exacerbating homelessness crises, while a win for the plaintiffs might force investments in housing solutions.

Administrative law faces a potential overhaul in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce*, which challenge the "Chevron deference" doctrine. Established in 1984, Chevron requires courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Fishermen argue this gives unelected bureaucrats too much power, urging the court to overrule it. The government defends Chevron as essential for expert-driven governance. With conservatives historically critical of administrative overreach, these cases could curtail federal agencies' authority in areas like environmental protection, healthcare, and finance, shifting power to courts and Congress.

Other notable cases include *Snyder v. United States*, questioning whether gifts to officials after actions constitute bribery; *Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors*, on time limits for challenging regulations; and *Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency*, contesting the EPA's "good neighbor" air pollution plan. Additionally, *Fischer v. United States* probes the scope of obstruction charges in January 6 cases, and *Purdue Pharma* involves a bankruptcy deal shielding the Sackler family from opioid lawsuits.

These rulings, expected soon, come amid public scrutiny of the court's ethics and declining approval ratings. Whatever the outcomes, they will profoundly influence American life, from the White House to everyday citizens, underscoring the Supreme Court's pivotal role in a divided nation. As we await decisions, the term's end promises a flurry of legal drama with lasting consequences. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full ABC 10 News Article at:
[ https://www.10news.com/politics/supreme-court/upcoming-supreme-court-rulings-these-key-cases-remain-before-current-term-ends ]