With the end of its 2024 term fast approaching, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to release a series of blockbuster rulings in coming weeks.
The outcomes of these cases have big implications for U.S. political life as well as the 2024 election: they touch on issues relating to whether former President Donald Trump enjoys broad immunity for his activity as president, obstruction charges around the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, social media laws, and the power of federal agencies.
The high court tends to release all its decisions for a term by the end of June, and only several days remain in the month. The justices have yet to release 14 cases for the term, which started in October.
Here’s an overview of those rulings—and the stakes behind the outcomes.
The biggest item on SCOTUS’s docket involves Trump’s claims of immunity in his Jan. 6 federal case.
Trump has argued that he should be declared immune for his activity after the 2020 election to deal with what he described as election fraud.
During arguments, the justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s arguments that he should be fully immune from prosecution, but some of the justices seemed inclined to carve out some immunity for presidents. Several justices offered warnings that all future former presidents could be prosecuted by their successors.
The appeal has, so far, delayed the criminal case in Washington, D.C., and future proceedings in the case hinge on its outcome.
SCOTUS will also rule on whether President Joe Biden’s administration acted improperly in seeking to have social media companies remove certain content, primarily related to the COVID-19 pandemic and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Free speech advocates have called on the court to rule against the Biden administration, describing the efforts to have some content removed as “censorship.”
Another social media-related ruling will determine whether a Republican law preventing social media companies from taking down certain views expressed on their platforms, a response to allegations that conservatives are disproportionately targeted by social media moderation.
A ruling is also expected in a case related to abortion.
The high court is set to release an order on whether emergency rooms in Idaho can perform abortions to pregnant women during what is described as an emergency.
Under an Idaho state law, abortion is banned except when the pregnant mother’s life is at risk. But the Biden administration had said the law conflicts with a federal law that mandates emergency room doctors stabilize patients, meaning they should perform an abortion if the mother’s life is considered to be at risk.
Finally, SCOTUS is also set to reevaluate the decades-old Chevron Doctrine, a broad doctrine which allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguities in laws passed by Congress.
Under the doctrine, U.S. courts gave wide leeway to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Securities and Exchange Commission to use powers delegated to them by Congress to administer the law.
Its outcome could further weaken federal regulatory authority, which has already been significantly reduced by the conservative-dominated court in past rulings.
—Joseph Lord and Jack Phillips
GAG ORDER HEARING
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, who’s overseeing a case charging Trump with mishandling classified documents, has scheduled a hearing for later this week as prosecutors seek the imposition of a new gag order on the 45th president.
Prosecutors in the case are requesting that the judge make clear that the former president “may not make statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case.”
When Trump entered a “not guilty” plea in the case, in which he’s charged with 40 counts of mishandling classified documents, he was released under standard conditions: he has to show up to court, can’t violate any state or federal laws, and is prohibited from contacting fact witnesses in the case.
In recent weeks, Cannon ordered the public release of documents related to the case that don’t contain classified information.
Included in the document dump that followed was a line about the Mar-a-Lago raid that grabbed national attention: In a law enforcement plan for the raid, agents received the green light for the “use of deadly force only when necessary.”
Trump, after a day in court in Manhattan for a separate criminal trial, wrote on Truth Social on May 21 that after leaving the courtroom he was shown news that the Justice Department “AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE.”
He later repeated this messaging with stronger language in an email blast: “They were authorized to shoot me!”
Though the language in the document was standard for law enforcement raids, many critics expressed outrage at the mere idea of authorizing deadly force to be used against a former commander-in-chief.
Following Trump’s criticism of the FBI’s authorization to potentially kill him in his Florida home, prosecutors have demanded that Cannon modify Trump’s conditions of release, a request akin to a gag order.
This makes for the fourth time prosecutors have requested that a gag order be placed on Trump.
Federal prosecutors argued that Trump’s speech exposes agents “to the risk of threats, violence, and harassment,” saying that Trump was misleading in his representation of the deadly force authorization.
Prosecutors plan to call some of those FBI agents as witnesses at trial and argue that Trump “irresponsibly put a target on the backs of the FBI agents involved in this case.” They used as an example a 2022 planned attack on an FBI office in Ohio by a Trump supporter.
“[The court] should take steps immediately to halt this dangerous campaign to smear law enforcement,” prosecutors argued.
Orders to preemptively prohibit speech are subject to a judge’s discretion but typically have a high legal bar to clear.
The defense argued that the prosecution has not met that bar and that a gag order on such a basis would be overreach, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
In a June 14 defense response brief, Trump’s attorneys argued that prosecutors had failed to provide any evidence that FBI agents are facing targeted threats or harassment.
“Not a single FBI agent who participated in the raid submitted an affidavit, or even an argument, claiming that President Trump’s remarks put them at risk.”
Without any evidence that Trump’s recent statements mentioning law enforcement have caused harassment, threats, or intimidation, defense counsel argued that the risk prosecutors cite remains hypothetical and cannot support a gag order.
They argued that Trump has a right to criticize the government and methods used by its agencies and that the prosecution’s response to such speech has been outsized.
—Joseph Lord and Catherine Yang
BOOKMARKS
Trump says he knows who his running mate—but he isn’t ready to unveil it just yet. The Epoch Times’ Joseph Lord reported on the 45th’s president’s comments, made during a campaign stop in Philadelphia. Sens. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum are currently seen by many observers as the frontrunners in the “veepstakes.”
Centrist Republican Rep. John Curtis (Utah) seems to be the frontrunner in the race to replace outgoing Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), The Epoch Times’ John Haughey reported. Curtis is facing a Trump-backed challenger in the person of Trent Staggs, who, judging by polls and fundraising, is still widely trailing Curtis.
Senators are once again considering a proposal to add women to the draft, The Epoch Times’ Ryan Morgan reported. The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy bill, would amend existing law to require women to register for the Selective Service System at 18, much like their male counterparts. The Democrat-led effort faces pushback from Republicans and conservatives.
Sixty-nine Democratic lawmakers have urged the departments of State and Homeland Security to accept more Palestinian refugees fleeing the war in Gaza, The Epoch Times’ Stacy Robinson reported. The letter, which was signed by many left-wing progressives in Congress, called for the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department to “open pathways to Palestinian refugees.”
Texas has set its sights on becoming the next state to mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public schools, The Epoch Times’ Tom Ozimek reported. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed to reintroduce legislation requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the state’s schools after a prior failed effort in Texas and success in Louisiana, which just became the first state in the country to adopt such a mandate.
