June Supreme Court decisions to include Trump, abortion, Second Amendment

The Supreme Court’s current term is heading toward a noteworthy June, with major decisions expected about former President Donald Trump’s immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges, abortion rights, the Second Amendment, and social media regulations.

The Court has already announced decisions in some major cases involving election maps, social media conduct by government officials, and the presence of Trump on Colorado’s presidential ballot. The justices usually conclude the release of the term’s remaining decisions by late June.

Trump v. United States was the last case argued at the Court during this term. The Supreme Court is considering Trump’s direct claims of immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges related to the 2020 presidential election. The immunity case centers on one major question: “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

Fischer v. United States is a case related to the riot that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Joseph Fischer was indicted for various offenses at that event, including the obstruction of congressional proceedings. In challenging his indictment, Fischer argues that the obstruction statute should be limited to offenses occurring in the context of congressional inquiries and investigations. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, however, ruled the statute applies to “all forms of obstructive conduct.”

Several cases are also set to be decided about abortion in the wake of the Court’s 2022 Dobbs  v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. decision. In a pair of cases, Moyle v. United States  and Idaho v. United States, the Court is considering how to interpret and rule on two seemingly conflicting laws: An Idaho law that bars abortions unless a physician “acts within exceptions that the statute enumerates,” and a federal law that requires facilities receiving Medicare funds to offer medically necessary care that may result in the termination of the pregnancy.

A separate case, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, concerns mifepristone, a widely used abortion drug that is used to end pregnancy through 10 weeks gestation. Doctors and associations of doctors who oppose abortion want to limit access to mifepristone, but the justices must first determine if those groups have the standing to pursue their case at the Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was the subject of two cases heard this term. In United States v. Rahimi, the justices are deciding if a federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders violates the Second Amendment. The second case, Garland v. Cargill, considers if a bump stock, an accessory which allows a rifle to fire hundreds of rounds in a minute, can be regulated under the National Firearms Act.

One of the remaining cases could overturn a landmark administrative law doctrine known as “Chevron deference,” which dates back to a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Under Chevron, if a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the statute if it is deemed reasonable. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo  and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, the justices will decide a dispute involving a challenge to commercial fishing regulations issued by the federal government. The issue is whether the agency that issued the regulations should be accorded deference under Chevron, or whether Chevron deference at all should be replaced by a different standard. During arguments, several justices questioned the Chevron doctrine’s constitutional basis, and the Court may seek to establish a new precedent.

Another case that could have broader implications involves local regulations seeking to limit the use of public property by the homeless. In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Oregon city has issued three ordinances related to camping and sleeping on public property. The plaintiffs challenging the ordinances argue they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. A federal district court agreed, finding that due to a lack of shelter beds, the Grants Pass ordinances does violate the Eighth Amendment.  

In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the publishing rights of websites and digital platforms—including YouTube, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter)—could be altered in a potentially momentous decision. Florida and Texas have passed laws attempting to regulate the platforms as “common carriers,” which could enable both states to regulate those private companies’ moderation and censorship of certain comments and content on their sites. The internet companies have challenged the laws, arguing that the First Amendment protects their private free speech rights to control the moderation of content on their sites.

A case argued in December 2023, Moore v. United States, concerns an interpretation of the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the power to pass an income tax. The Ninth Circuit held that a married couple could be taxed on earnings that were not realized income but were retained and reinvested by a corporation in which they are minority shareholders. The Court will decide whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.

Finally, in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the Court is considering a Justice Department request to block the bankruptcy settlement involving opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma and its former owners, the Sackler family. The settlement involves a $6 billion payment from the family, with the condition that third-party releases would prevent further victim lawsuits against the Sacklers.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.