The following was updated to include more information on each of these cases.

The following link describes seven very important cases, yet to be decided by the Supreme Court. There are at present 21 undecided cases, but these are the important ones. I would expect all cases to be decided by July 12, 2024. I think they can push back the summer adjournment date, to complete the remaining cases.

I’ve used the same titles as in the CNN article, which unless the CNN article is read, can give the wrong impression. This is particularly true in case 3, where one convicted rioter wants a charge of obstructing an official proceeding dropped because the defendant claims it was based on a law that was never intended for this purpose. The result will be chaotic to the courts because many rioters have been charged under this statute and their sentences can be reduced or voided by the appeals court. Donald Trump for his actions, is also charged under this statute.

It would also help in securing presidential pardons for rioters, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Fischer case. As a practical matter, these are not people you would rather not release early, but they should not be held if the law is now considered invalid.

CNN: Abortion, guns, Trump and more: These are the Supreme Court’s biggest remaining cases

1. Trump claims ‘absolute’ immunity

2. Abortion for health in emergencies

3. January 6 rioters seek to shorten sentences (‘Fischer Case’)

4. Guns for domestic abusers

5. Government regulation of Facebook

6. Cleaning up online ‘disinformation’

7. Government regulations threatened (Chevron deference to agency decisions)

Cases 1 and 3 will have a direct impact on the January 6 charges against Trump. The Fischer case could allow rioters of the Capitol to have some of the charges against them dropped by the appeals court. Also, the charges against Trump might be reduced from four to two.

Case 2 is the result of laws banning abortion unless it is a life or death situation with the pregnant woman. This case will examining bans on abortion which prohibit doctors from treating woman, where there is real health consequences if they do not have abortion.

Case 4 centers on state laws which restrict gun ownership because individuals were guilty of crimes of domestic abuse. The interpretation of Second Amendment rights by the Court of gun ownership, was a classic clash between conservatives vs liberals. The case will be interesting as it is a balance between gun ownership rights and public safety, which is a legitimate government responsibility. After the heated bump stock decision, I am certain all liberals will agree the restrictions are constitutional. To win, they must convince two conservatives to vote with them.

Case 5 concerns actions against Facebook for prohibiting misinformation on their platform. State laws which would limit or ban this practice. Facebook routinely refused to allow many myths about Covid-19 and unfounded personal attacks. I think the liberals will support Facebook’s right to refuse to post misinformation. Other postings, like the elections in either the US and Brazil, were rigged, generally receive disclaimers instead of outright deletions.

Case 6 comes from the Biden’s administration policy of advising social media platforms, that their sites contain false information. They are not regulating the content of the platform, yet there are serious free speech issues at play. I believe the liberals on the court will uphold the government’s position.

Case 7 is about the “Chevron doctrine” which gives deference to the judgement of the agency in regards to decisions requiring their expertise. For practical reasons, in determining air and water standards, the ability of agencies to set their own rules is important. You can expect the liberals on the court to want to keep the Chevron doctrine as it is, and conservatives will want to discard it, or make it much more restrictive.

See link: Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron

Per Wikipedia:

Chevron is one of the most important decisions in U.S. administrative law. It has been cited in thousands of cases since its issuance in 1984.^[4] Thirty-nine years later, in May 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to reevaluate Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451. A decision is expected in the first half of 2024.^[5]

Wikipedia: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

The Chevron decision was decided by a 6-0 vote by the Supreme Court. If it is overturned, then the three liberals on the court will likely have a strongly worded dissent, based on Stare Decisis:

Stare Decisis—a Latin term that means “let the decision stand” or “to stand by things decided”—is a foundational concept in the American legal system. To put it simply, stare decisis holds that courts and judges should honor “precedent”—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases.

Quite bluntly, Chevron was a practical decision that kept very nuanced challenges to agencies’ decisions out of the realm of the courts. The only change to Chevron is the makeup of the court.

In the next two weeks or so, all these cases will be decided. The court is now six conservatives and three liberals. For liberals to win, they must convince at least two conservatives to join them. There’s a lot of speculation on social media and cable networks on how they might decide. We will know soon enough.

Stay tuned,

Dave