What does the Supreme Court still have to make your mind up? Here's the list.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court enters its final week with a few quarter of the cases it has heard this 12 months still undecided, including cases that would reshape the law on all the pieces from abortion to social media.

The court heard 61 cases during this legislative period, 15 of that are still unresolved.

Here is a have a look at a few of crucial undecided cases:

Immunity of the President
Donald Trump argues that former presidents are immune from prosecution for his or her official actions and that the election interference charges against him should be dropped.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that former presidents can’t be sued in civil proceedings for his or her official actions, but has never ruled on the problem of criminal immunity.

The timing of the choice may very well be as necessary because the final result itself. Trump's trial in Washington DC is unlikely to happen before the November election, even when the court rules that he isn’t immune.

6 January 2021
A former Pennsylvania police officer is difficult the legality of obstruction of justice charges brought against tons of of individuals involved within the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump is facing the identical accusation of obstruction of an official proceeding.

The query is whether or not a law designed to forestall the manipulation of documents required for investigations may be used against the rioters within the Capitol.

Emergency abortion
This 12 months, a second abortion case is on the agenda: It concerns whether doctors can perform this medical procedure in emergency situations in states where abortion was banned after the overturning of the Roe v. Wade ruling.

In a case in Idaho, the Biden administration says abortions should be allowed in emergency situations where a lady's health is at serious risk.

The state argues that its strict abortion ban allows abortions to avoid wasting a lady's life and that no exceptions based on health risks are obligatory.

The Supreme Court's most vital case on homelessness in many years concerns whether people may be banned from sleeping outdoors when there’s a shortage of emergency shelters.

According to a choice by an appeals court in San Francisco, that is cruel and strange punishment.

Politicians in California and across the West say the ruling will make it harder for them to manage the spread of homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public places.

Advocates say it might criminalize homelessness at a time when the number of individuals and not using a everlasting home has risen to record levels attributable to rising costs.

The justices could overturn a 40-year-old decision that has been cited hundreds of times in federal court cases and used to uphold environmental, public health, employee safety and consumer protection regulations. The decision, known colloquially as Chevron, requires judges to defer to federal regulators when the language of a law isn’t crystal clear. The decision has long been a goal of conservative and business interests that say Chevron strips judges of their authority and offers regulators an excessive amount of power.

Social Media
At the interface between social media and government, three cases are still unresolved.

Two of the cases involve social media laws in Texas and Florida that will limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate the content posted by their users. While the specifics vary, each bills were geared toward addressing conservative complaints that the social media firms are liberal-leaning and censor users based on their views, particularly those on the precise.

In the third case, Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to crack down on controversial social media posts on issues corresponding to COVID-19 and election security. A federal appeals court sided with the states, finding that government officials unconstitutionally forced the platforms to limit conservative viewpoints.

Purdue Pharma
The Supreme Court is deciding the fate of a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that will provide billions of dollars to fight the opioid epidemic but in addition provide legal protection for members of the Sackler family who own the corporate. The settlement has been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to intervene.

Air pollution
Republican-led energy-producing states and the steel industry want the court to place the Environmental Protection Agency's “Good Neighbor” plan to combat air pollution on hold while legal battles proceed. The plan goals to guard downwind states that have unwanted air pollution from other states.

Another major regulatory case could deprive the SEC of a key tool within the fight against securities fraud and have broad implications for other regulators. The court is predicted to rule that individuals facing civil fraud charges have the precise to a jury trial in federal court.

image credit : www.mercurynews.com