As the Supreme Court prepares to wade into its final month before the start of the summer recess in July, the justices have held tight to high-profile decisions that will define the term.
The high court has already checked off at least two major decisions in separate matters pertaining to a decadeslong legal fight between Idaho landowners and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a case over the immunity that social media companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
FOOD STAMPS: WHY SNAP BENEFIT PAYMENTS COULD BE AMONG FIRST CASUALTIES OF DEBT CEILING CRISIS
In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Thursday stating that the Clean Water Act only covers wetlands that are "indistinguishable" from larger bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection." This ruling will remove numerous wetlands from federal jurisdiction, allowing landowners to develop on them without needing a federal permit.
In Gonzalez v. Google, the Supreme Court on May 18 avoided making a ruling on the controversial issues related to Section 230 of the CDA regarding social media platforms. Instead, they remanded the case to a lower court based on a separate ruling involving Twitter. The decision resulted in a unanimous 9-0 outcome.
Here's a look at the outstanding cases that are poised to define the Fall 2022-23 term:
Student loan forgiveness: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown
The Supreme Court is deliberating on the constitutionality of President Joe Biden's plan to forgive federal student loans up to $10,000 for those with incomes up to $125,000 and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
GOP-led states challenged the plan, and the Republican-controlled House passed a resolution last week to overturn it. The measure will likely face hurdles in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and Biden has vowed to veto any resolution against it.
Biden used executive power under the HEROES Act, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the basis, though the health emergency ended on May 11.
Affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina
The court is examining the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions, known as affirmative action. While such standards have been used for years, a majority (62%) oppose their use, per a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Lawsuits against UNC and Harvard claim discrimination, presenting anecdotes and acceptance rate statistics surrounding Asian American applicants. The universities argue that race is only one factor among many in admissions.
Same-sex weddings and businesses: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
The court is considering whether businesses can refuse services to create custom websites for same-sex weddings based on religious objections to same-sex marriage. In the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the business owner argues that a Colorado law violates her religious beliefs by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Justices are examining the intersection of the First Amendment and civil rights, with potentially significant ramifications for both religious liberty and the LGBT community.
Religious accommodations: Groff v. Dejoy
A Christian and former U.S. Postal Service mail carrier says his former employer did not do enough to accommodate his request that he not work on Sundays.
Adopting Native American children: Haaland v. Brackeen
In Haaland v. Brackeen, the court is assessing a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which gives extended family members, tribal members, and, if no other options are available, another Native family priority for adopting Native children.
One of the petitioners in the case — Chad and Jennifer Brackeen — almost had their adopted Navajo Nation child taken away from them due to the law. The case calls into focus the long-standing questions of Native American sovereignty in the United States.
Immigration enforcement based on public safety threats: U.S. v. Texas
The Biden administration wants to revive a policy blocked by a lower court that prioritized immigration enforcement by focusing on threats to public safety.
Deportation of illegal immigrants: Pugin v. Garland and Garland v. Cordero-Garcia
The pair of cases involve a key issue looking at the scope of the federal government's ability to deport illegal immigrants.
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that allows for deportation for "an offense relating to obstruction of justice” extends to situations where there is not a current investigation or court case.
The standards in criminal proceedings typically operate under state rather than federal law, often leaving the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals to find whether a state crime fits with a federal crime to use as justification for deportation.
GOP-effort to limit the Voting Rights Act: Merrill v. Milligan
The case surrounds a Republican-led effort to restrict the Voting Rights Act by making it more difficult to draw minority-majority districts in response to claims that lines were drawn to diminish the power of minority voters.
Republicans want limits on state courts reviewing election law: Moore v. Harper
Moore v. Harper features a dispute over North Carolina's Supreme Court dismissing a GOP-backed apportionment plan for being too partisan.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Republicans challenged the high court, but conservative justices regained control. The now-5-2 Republican-majority court will rehear the redistricting case, reversing its prior ruling that influenced the pending Moore v. Harper case before the Supreme Court.
Legal experts speculate whether the Supreme Court will offer guidance on the "independent state legislature theory." This theory asserts broad discretion for state legislatures in administering federal elections, with minimal oversight from state courts or governors. The court's stance on this matter remains uncertain.