BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that people under domestic violence restraining orders can be prohibited from possessing guns, marking a victory for gun control and victim advocacy groups. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
(NewsNation) — The Supreme Court has adjusted its schedule, adding an additional opinion day this week as it nears the end of its 2023-2024 term.
The court will be in session Thursday and Friday of this week, with likely sessions next Thursday and Friday, although those dates haven’t been confirmed. Justices announced that Friday will be an order day, during which the court “may announce opinions” on cases before them, Newsweek reported.
If necessary, the court could extend the deadline to July to conclude all cases. Opinions are issued at 10 a.m. E.T. on opinion days.
So far this term, the court has heard more than 60 cases and issues decisions on legal issues including bump stocks and access to the abortion pill. There are about 20 unresolved cases.
Here’s a look at the Supreme Court’s remaining crucial cases, spanning from guns to social media:
Trump’s presidential immunity claim
The Supreme Court is considering the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during a former president’s tenure.
Former President Donald Trump has argued that former presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts in office and seeks dismissal of his federal election interference indictment.
While the Supreme Court has previously ruled that ex-presidents can’t be sued in civil cases for actions taken in office, it hasn’t addressed criminal immunity.
The court’s ruling will come as Trump’s trial in Washington might not occur before the November election, even if he isn’t deemed immune.
Jan. 6 rioters seek to shorten sentences
Justices must still decide whether federal prosecutors can charge the defendants in the Jan. 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol with obstruction.
A former Pennsylvania police officer is challenging the use of obstruction charges against hundreds of rioters, the same charge Trump faces for obstructing an official proceeding.
The key issue is whether a law aimed at preventing document tampering can be applied to the rioters.
Abortion in emergencies
The justices are also considering whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act overrides state laws prohibiting abortions, such as Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.
A second abortion case questions whether doctors can perform abortions in medical emergencies in states that banned abortions after the court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that conferred a constitutional right to abortion.
The Biden administration argues abortions must be allowed in emergencies when a woman’s health is at serious risk.
Idaho contends its abortion ban allows procedures to save a woman’s life without broader exceptions for health risks.
Guns and domestic abusers
The Supreme Court ruled June 21 that people under domestic violence restraining orders can be prohibited from possessing guns, marking a victory for gun control and victim advocacy groups. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
The case, United States v. Rahimi, centered around whether a federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment.
An appeals court previously struck down the law, ruling it is a violation of the Second Amendment, following a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights.
Government’s regulation of social media
Three unresolved cases involve the government’s regulation of social media.
Two cases involve Texas and Florida laws limiting how social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, X and YouTube regulate user content, addressing conservative complaints of censorship.
The third case involves Republican-led states suing the Biden administration over its efforts to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
A federal appeals court sided with the states, finding the administration unconstitutionally pressured the platforms to limit conservative viewpoints.
Bans on sleeping outside
Justices will also determine whether people can be banned from sleeping outdoors when homeless shelter space is lacking.
A San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that such bans are cruel and unusual punishment.
Leaders from California and across the West argue this makes regulating homeless encampments difficult, while advocates believe it would criminalize homelessness amid rising housing costs.
SEC’s fraud fight
Justices must still decide whether a regulatory case could limit the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to fight securities fraud by ensuring that people facing civil fraud complaints have the right to a jury trial in federal court, impacting other regulatory agencies as well.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.