<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1654892072878,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1654892072878,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_54891956", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1028420"} }); ","_id":"00000181-4f3f-d1f1-a1c3-7fff66510000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedThe Supreme Court has already issued its two landmark rulings this term, overturning nearly 50 years of abortion access precedent and expanding gun rights for the first time in a decade. Now, the court must decide four outstanding cases before the end of the present term.
Wednesday will mark the next day justices will release opinions.
Here are the top remaining cases to watch for as the court is slated to conclude its term by the first days of July.
SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE, PAVING WAY FOR STATE ABORTION BANS
West Virginia v. EPA
The Supreme Court heard arguments in February over a lawsuit by a coalition of states and coal companies seeking to limit the Environmental Protection Agency‘s authority to regulate power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions, with the majority of justices appearing to see the agency’s power as narrow.
The primary question of the case is whether the EPA’s reach extends outside of energy plants to encompass broader aspects of the U.S. energy sector as part of its efforts to combat air pollution.
A main part of the high court’s forthcoming decision could focus on the major questions doctrine, which is the concept that Congress has delegated authority to an agency to make a rule or regulation.
If the court decides the EPA has overstepped its reach in regulating carbon output, that case may have a broad impact on other administrative agencies across the executive branch.
‘Remain in Mexico’
Biden v. Texas is the case involving a Trump-era immigration policy commonly referred to as “Remain in Mexico,” which was enacted in 2019.
The policy mandates that asylum-seekers at the southern border stay in Mexico while awaiting asylum hearings, which can last months to years.
President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has disputed the Trump-era policy and is appealing lower court rulings that required the 2019 immigration program, previously known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, to remain in place.
The president initially paused the program after taking office in January 2021, and the DHS ended the program in June 2021. However, the administration was successfully sued by Texas and Missouri to reinstate it and lost an appeal to the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote that refused to intervene on an emergency basis.
Work protections for veterans
Another Texas-related dispute involving work protections for veterans is a case brought by Le Roy Torres, a veteran and former employee of the state Department of Public Safety.
Torres told the agency that he couldn’t perform his duties as a state trooper and sought a similar occupation under the agency to accommodate his injury that was sustained on the job. He was denied and later filed a lawsuit under a federal law intended to shield reemployment rights of veterans.
Texas argued that states can block such lawsuits under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which was passed under Congress’s war powers authority.
The high court is slated to decide Torres v. Texas this week, which could have a major effect on thousands of reserve and active-duty service members who work for state agencies.
Native American lands in Oklahoma
The Supreme Court agreed to consider Oklahoma’s petition limiting the scope of the 2020 ruling McGirt v. Oklahoma, which enhanced Native American tribal authority in Oklahoma in a case surrounding a man convicted of child neglect.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that a large area in the eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land, thus allowing only tribal and federal prosecutors to charge crimes that occur on land legally known as “Indian Country.”
Although the 2020 decision resulted in a massive surge of new appeals, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled last year that the McGirt decision did not apply retroactively to already decided cases and relieved some of the pressure on the state’s criminal justice system.
The case pending a decision on Wednesday, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, is an examination of the scope of the court’s 2020 ruling. Justices will determine “whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.”
Landmark decisions issued this term
Justices finally rendered a 5-1-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Friday, upending landmark cases including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, giving states the right to make laws severely limiting abortion access.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a long-standing New York concealed carry law violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 ruling against New York’s 108-year-old law that limited who can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Additionally, the high court ruled 6-3 in an opinion Monday in favor of a former high school football coach who was fired from his job for his postgame prayers on the field.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, arguing the fear of offending the Constitution’s establishment clause does not require the government “to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”
