最高法院将本任期的重磅判决留到了最后，预计本周将做出裁决学生贷款,肯定行动还有更多。
法官们将在美国东部时间周二上午10点宣布他们的下一轮意见。从10月份开始的这个学期总共还有10个案例。
他们的裁决将决定数百万拥有联邦学生贷款的美国人的命运，这是一个有40年种族意识的大学招生过程的先例，联邦选举在美国是如何进行的，以及LGBTQ+的权利。
本学期，最高法院已经介入了涉及投票权法案，拜登政府的驱逐政策，的印度儿童福利法和社交媒体责任。
下面让我们仔细看看本月底之前需要解决的四个主要问题。
肯定行动
一个保守的倡导团体要求法官扭转几十年来的先例，禁止使用具有种族意识的招生政策，认为他们在公平招生学生诉北卡罗来纳大学和公平招生学生诉哈佛大学中歧视亚裔申请人。
在各自的案例中，这些大学坚持认为，种族是对学生申请人进行整体评估的诸多因素之一，他们的过程遵循先例。
法院保守的多数似乎准备撤销平权法案去年秋天在听取了更多关于这两起案件的辩论后。
选举法和“独立的州议会”理论
在北卡罗来纳州的摩尔诉哈珀(Moore v. Harper)重划选区案中，法官们被要求考虑一个关于谁监督选举的有争议的法律理论-这一决定可能对2024年的选举周期产生重大影响。
“独立的州立法机构”理论认为，州立法者拥有最终权力来监管联邦选举，不受州宪法或法院等传统约束。这一理论得到了保守派倡导者的支持，尽管民主和选举专家认为，如果这一理论得到最极端的应用，它可能会颠覆全国的选举法。
法院似乎对这一理论有疑问在去年年底的口头辩论中，他发布了一项命令，要求双方提交解释，说明为什么他们应该根据州一级的事态发展继续权衡此案。
LGBTQ+权利和言论自由
在303 Creative LLC诉Elenis一案中，科罗拉多州的一名婚礼网站设计师要求最高法院废除科罗拉多州的公共住宿法，认为该法侵犯了她的第一修正案言论自由权。
这位反对同性婚姻的设计师表示，法律要求她为LGBTQ+客户服务，否则将面临罚款，这迫使她违背自己的宗教信仰。
下级法院裁定科罗拉多州胜诉，但最高法院似乎同情设计师的情况在去年年底的争论中。
学生贷款
法院将决定乔·拜登总统免除学生贷款债务的4000亿美元计划是否会向前推进。政府去年9月宣布的这项计划将为4000多万美国人免除高达2万美元的联邦学生贷款债务。
这一举措受到了六个共和党领导的州的挑战，他们认为政府超越了权限，同时也不公平地排除了不符合资格的美国人，并消耗了贷款服务机构的收入。两名学生贷款借款人在该计划下被拒绝救济也提起诉讼。
这两个案例是拜登诉内布拉斯加州和教育部诉布朗。
法院的保守派集团似乎有些怀疑在二月份的口头辩论中，教育部因新冠肺炎·疫情而免除数十亿美元债务的权力。然而，也有人质疑各州是否有起诉的法律地位，以及他们将如何受到该政策的伤害。
Blockbuster Supreme Court decisions to come on student loans, affirmative action and more
The Supreme Court has left this term's blockbuster decisions for last, with rulings expected this week onstudent loans,affirmative actionand more.
The justices will hand down their next round of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m. ET. There are 10 total cases remaining from the term that began back in October.
Their rulings will decide the fate of millions of Americans with federal student loans, a 40-year precedent of race-conscious college admissions processes, how federal elections are run in the U.S. and LGBTQ+ rights.
Already this term, the Supreme Court has weighed in on cases involving theVoting Rights Act, the Biden administration'sdeportation policy, theIndian Child Welfare Actandsocial media liability.
Here's a closer look at four major issues left to be resolved by the month's end.
Affirmative action
A conservative advocacy group is asking the justices to reverse decades of precedent and ban the use of race-conscious admissions policies, arguing they discriminate against Asian-American applicants, in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
The universities, in their respective cases, insisted race is one factor among many used in a holistic assessment of student applicants and that their processes adhere to precedent.
The court's conservative majorityappeared poised to roll back affirmative actionafter hearing more arguments in both cases last fall.
Election law and the 'independent state legislature' theory
In Moore v. Harper, a redistricting case out of North Carolina, the justices are being asked to consider a controversial legal theory about who oversees elections -- a decision that could have major implications for the 2024 cycle.
The "independent state legislature" theory contends state lawmakers have ultimate power to regulate federal elections free from traditional constraints such as state constitutions or courts. The theory is being backed by conservative advocates, though democracy and election experts contend the theory could upend election laws around the country if embraced in its most extreme application.
The courtappeared dubious of the theoryduring oral arguments late last year and later issued an order for both sides to submit explanations on why they should continue to weigh the case in light of developments at the state level.
LGBTQ+ rights and free speech
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a Colorado wedding website designer is asking the Supreme Court to strike down Colorado's public accommodation law, arguing it infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech.
The designer, who opposes gay marriage, said the law -- which requires her to serve LGBTQ+ customers or face a fine -- compels her to go against her religious beliefs.
Lower courts ruled in Colorado's favor but the Supreme Courtseemed sympathetic to the designer's caseduring arguments late last year.
Student loans
The court will determine whether President Joe Biden's $400 billion plan to forgive student loan debt will move forward. The plan, announced by the administration last September, would wipe out up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt for more than 40 million Americans.
The move was challenged by six Republican-led states, which argued the administration exceeded its authority while also unfairly excluding Americans who don't qualify and costing loan servicers revenue. Two student-loan borrowers denied relief under the program also sued.
The two cases are Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.
The court's conservative blocseemed skepticalduring February oral arguments of the Department of Education's power to waive billions in debt because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there were also questions about whether the states had legal standing to sue and how they would be harmed by the policy.
