The U.S. Supreme Court heads into June with 29 argued cases to be decided before the term concludes at the end of the month.
The court will convene Monday at 10 a.m. and is expected to release opinions for these cases.
Here are some of the biggest cases the court heard earlier in the term that are still pending before the justices:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
[Update: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker who refused to make cake for same-sex wedding]
In this case before the high court, the justices will determine the constitutionality of Colorado’s public accommodations law that compels a Colorado baker to participate in a form of speech that defies his religious beliefs.
The case centers around a dispute between Jack Phillips, the baker, and Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, a gay couple who asked Phillips to bake a cake for their wedding reception.
Phillips told the couple he didn’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.
Craig and Mullins then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission after learning the state’s public accommodations law barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The commission ruled in favor of the gay couple, and a state appeals court agreed.
Phillips’ lawyers argued the public accommodations law violated his free speech rights, as they forced him to engage in speech that violated his religious beliefs.
The case sits at the intersection of gay rights and freedom of expression, and has garnered significant public interest from groups across the political spectrum.
Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone
For more than 10 years, the justices have declined to weigh in on partisan gerrymandering cases. But that drought ended this term, when the Supreme Court considered two cases that questioned whether two voting maps were drawn to entrench the political party in power in violation of voters’ constitutional rights.
Gill v. Whitford, a case out of Wisconsin, challenged the full legislative map drawn by Republican leaders in the state, with Democratic voters arguing the redistricting plan constituted a partisan gerrymander.
Benisek v. Lamone, a case out of Maryland, deals with a single congressional district in Maryland — the Sixth Congressional District. Republican voters argue Democratic officials violated their First Amendment rights by creating a district that would ensure a Democratic win.
The justices have for years been stumped over how to address partisan gerrymandering, and during oral arguments in the Maryland case in March, the Supreme Court didn’t appear to be any closer to finding a solution.
If the court strikes down the maps in either Maryland and Wisconsin on partisan gerrymandering grounds, it would be the first time it has ever done so.
But some of the justices seemed concerned during arguments that if the court decided it could hear partisan gerrymandering cases, they would be forced to weigh in on every gerrymandering dispute between political parties.
[Redrawing America: Two Supreme Court gerrymandering cases that could reshape our elections]
Janus v. AFSCME
For the second time in two years, the Supreme Court considered whether labor unions can require non-members to pay fees that fund collective bargaining negotiations.
In the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the high court ruled public employees can be required by unions pay these “agency fees” to fund a “fair share” of collective bargaining costs.
In 2016, the justices heard a case involving a California teacher who argued the “agency fees” violated her First Amendment rights. But the court deadlocked at 4-4 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
This term, the justices heard a similar case involving Mark Janus, an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who also said the agency fees are unconstitutional.
If the court overturns Abood and deems “agency fees” unconstitutional, it would deal a serious blow to public-sector unions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newest member of the court, is expected to be the deciding vote, though he remained quiet during oral arguments in February.
Carpenter v. United States
In this blockbuster Fourth Amendment case, the justices were tasked with examining whether the government needs a warrant to seize cell phone records, including location information.
The case stems from a string of armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan that occurred in 2010 and 2011. As part of its investigation, the government obtained without a search warrant 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, the plaintiff in the case.
Those records included cell phone location information for Carpenter, which allowed law enforcement to pinpoint his location and movements when the robberies occurred.
Carpenter’s lawyers argued the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they failed to get a warrant for his cell phone records. But the government claimed that a warrant is not needed to seize such information due to the “third-party doctrine,” derived from two previous Supreme Court decisions.
Under the third-party doctrine, a customer effectively loses the expectation of privacy when he or she voluntarily turns over information to a third-party, such as a cell phone company.
The case has united a diverse coalition of stakeholders who fear a ruling in the governor’s favor could allow law enforcement to freely obtain troves of digital data that reveals a great deal about a person.
Trump v. Hawaii
The court closed out its argument calendar for the year with a blockbuster case challenging the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban.
The president’s executive order restricted travel to the U.S. from seven countries that the Trump administration said posed terrorism risks.
The state of Hawaii, a Muslim association, and several individuals are challenging the travel ban on constitutional and statutory grounds.
At issue in the case is whether Trump exceeded his authority under federal immigration law and discriminated based on nationality. The justices also examined whether the travel ban violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
The Trump administration argued in April the Constitution and Congress granted “broad authority” to the president to place restrictions on the entry of immigrants to the U.S. when he believes it’s in the country’s interest.
Lawyers for the administration also said the order was issued only after a “worldwide review” by government agencies that examined whether foreign governments provide the U.S. with adequate information that allows for proper vetting of foreign nationals.
But the challengers in the case argued the travel ban seeks to ban more than 150 million immigrants based solely on their nationality, which exceeds the authority Congress delegated to the president under federal immigration law.
They also pointed to Trump’s tweets and campaign statements as evidence the president acted out of animus toward Muslims and said the travel ban discriminates on the basis of religion.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, it would deliver a huge victory to the administration, which has so far been handed losses by the lower courts.
Many court watchers are waiting to see whether the justices consider Trump’s campaign statements in determining the legality of the policy and whether the president acted with discriminatory intent.
South Dakota v. Wayfair
In a case that could have major implications for e-commerce, the Supreme Court is considering whether states can force Internet retailers to collect sales taxes if they have no physical presence in the state.
The case is a challenge to a 1992 decision from the Supreme Court, which said states could not require businesses with no presence in a state to collect sales taxes there.
But despite this decision from the high court, the South Dakota legislature passed a law that requires retailers who sell “tangible personal property” in the state, but don’t have a physical presence there, to pay state sales taxes.
South Dakota argued that as online shopping has grown, the state is missing out on billions of dollars in revenue.
But online retailers believe it should be Congress, not the courts, that address the issue.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to side with South Dakota in the case, and said the 1992 decision from the Supreme Court is “badly reasoned and has proved unworkable in the age of modern e-commerce.”
