这最高法院任期即将结束的联邦最高法院，即将对从总统权力到堕胎权的所有重大案件做出裁决。
法官们将在本周的周三、周四和周五发表意见。这将标志着至少十年来法官们第一次连续三天发表意见。
这一时机意味着，一些关键决定可能会对2024年的竞选产生巨大影响，这些决定可能会在乔·拜登总统和前总统唐纳德·特朗普在亚特兰大的舞台上会面时宣布第一次辩论.
仍有待解决的重大案件包括特朗普是否免于因试图推翻2020年大选失利而受到的刑事起诉，以及涉嫌1月6日骚乱者是否被不当指控妨碍司法公正。
以下是对美国高等法院未决的一些剩余案件的深入探究。
总统豁免权
这可能是本学期最高法院审理的最重要的案件，法官们将决定前总统是否可以免除在白宫期间采取的“官方行为”的刑事责任。
在特朗普诉美国一案中，特朗普试图通过要求豁免来撤销特别顾问杰克·史密斯提起的联邦选举颠覆案。
下级法院断然拒绝了特朗普的论点，但大法官们在4月份听取辩论时，似乎对前总统某种程度的豁免权持开放态度。他们的提问主要集中在哪些类型的官方行为会受到保护，哪些不会。
大法官如何做出这一决定将为总统权力设定新的标准，并将影响特朗普在2020年大选后是否因其前所未有的行为而受审。
1月6日妨碍指控
联邦检察官对1月6日暴乱者的重罪妨碍指控是接受考验在费希尔诉美国一案中。
一名被指控参与美国国会大厦袭击的前宾夕法尼亚州警官质疑政府使用2002年颁布的一项法律来防止破坏金融犯罪证据。该法律对任何“以其他方式阻碍、影响或妨碍官方程序”的行为做出了全面规定。
最高法院似乎在政府对该法的广义解释应该保持不变还是应该缩小的问题上存在分歧，法官中的保守派质疑该法没有对与金融或文件犯罪无关的事项进行起诉。
法院的决定可能会推翻1月6日的数百起案件，包括特朗普的案件。妨碍重罪是这位前总统在联邦选举颠覆案中面临的四项指控之一。
爱达荷州堕胎禁令和紧急护理
周四最高法院发布裁决尽管爱达荷州几乎完全禁止紧急堕胎，但这将暂时允许该州进行紧急堕胎。
在Moyle诉美国一案中法庭上的问题一项要求急诊室为所有病人提供稳定护理的联邦法律是否凌驾于禁止几乎所有堕胎的爱达荷州法律之上，除了报告的强奸、乱伦或母亲有生命危险的情况。
拜登政府辩称，该法律与《紧急医疗和劳工法案》(EMTALA)相冲突，该法案要求接受医疗保险基金的医院提供“必要的稳定治疗”。
法院在没有考虑核心问题的情况下驳回了该案，而是将其发回下级法院进一步审理。
该案标志着最高法院首次听取了关于罗伊诉韦德案失败后通过的州级堕胎限制的辩论。自从最高法院保守的多数推翻了罗伊案，21个州成功地颁布了对堕胎的限制或禁令，其中14个州几乎毫无例外地完全禁止堕胎。
无家可归者营地禁令
在……里最重要的无家可归案例几十年来，大法官们一直在权衡，根据宪法第八修正案，禁止没有永久居留权的人露宿街头的地方法规是否构成“残忍和不寻常”的惩罚。
俄勒冈州Grants Pass的官员认为，该条例对于保护公共空间和鼓励越来越多的无家可归的居民寻求庇护是必要的。一家下级法院裁定，当无家可归者无处可去时，对他们进行罚款和监禁的处罚是违反宪法的。
最高法院的大多数法官似乎有利于该市在4月份审理此案时的观点。
社交媒体监管和言论自由
最高法院将决定是否限制社交媒体公司如何调节内容的州法律违反第一修正案。
佛罗里达州和德克萨斯州的措施旨在限制私营公司如何管理用户账户和他们平台上的信息。这两项法案都是在保守派的担忧中通过的，他们担心脸书和X(原名Twitter)正在审查他们网站上基于政治的观点。
在另一个案例中，Murthy诉密苏里州，法官们周三驳回了一项挑战拜登政府与社交媒体公司就其网站上关于新冠肺炎和2020年大选的错误信息进行了沟通。
共和党领导的州和五个个人用户辩称，政府的行为相当于非法胁迫，而政府辩称，他们与这些公司的接触旨在保护国家安全和公共健康。
法官驳回了质疑，称原告没有起诉政府的法律地位，因为他们无法证明政府的外联直接导致了对他们观点的审查。
Supreme Court poised to issue major rulings on presidential immunity, Jan. 6
TheSupreme Court, nearing the end of its term, is poised to soon deliver rulings in high-profile cases on everything from presidential power to abortion access.
The justices is releasing opinions on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week. It will mark the first time in at least a decade the justices have done three opinion days in a row.
The timing means key decisions, some with enormous consequences for the 2024 campaign, could be handed down just as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump meet on stage in Atlanta for theirfirst debate.
Blockbuster cases still to be resolved include whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution on charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and whether alleged Jan. 6 rioters were improperly charged with obstruction.
Here is a deeper dive into the some of the remaining cases pending before the nation’s high court.
Presidential immunity
In what is likely the most consequential case before the court this term, the justices will decide whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for "official acts" taken while in the White House.
In Trump v. United States, Trump is seeking to quash the federal election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith by claiming immunity.
Lower courts flatly rejected Trump's argument, but the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents when they heard arguments in April. Their questioning largely focused on what types of official acts would be protected and which would not.
How the justices make that determination will set a new standard for presidential power, and will affect whether Trump stands trial for his unprecedented actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
Jan. 6 obstruction charges
A felony obstruction charge used by federal prosecutors against alleged Jan. 6 rioters isbeing put to the testin Fischer v. United States.
A former Pennsylvania police officer charged for his alleged participation in the U.S. Capitol attack is challenging the government's use of a 2002 law enacted to prevent the destruction of evidence in financial crimes. The law includes a sweeping provision for any conduct that "otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding."
The Supreme Court appeared divided on whether the government's broad interpretation of the law should stand or be narrowed, with conservatives on the bench questioning the lack of prosecutions under the law for matters unrelated to financial or documentary crimes.
The court's decision could upend hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, including Trump's. Felony obstruction is one of the four charges the former president is facing in his federal election subversion case.
Idaho abortion ban and emergency care
The Supreme Court on Thursdayissued a rulingthat will allow emergency abortion access in Idaho, for now, despite the state's near-total ban on the procedure.
In Moyle v. United States, thequestion before the courtwas whether a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care to all patients overrides Idaho law prohibiting nearly all abortions except in reported cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk.
The Biden administration argued the law is conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment."
The court dismissed the case without considering the core issues, instead sending it back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
The case marked the first time the court heard arguments about state-level abortion restrictions passed after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Since the court's conservative majority struck down Roe, 21 states have successfully enacted restrictions or bans on abortion and 14 of those states have total bans with few exceptions.
Homeless encampment ban
In themost significant case on homelessnessin decades, the justices are weighing whether a local ordinance to bar anyone without a permanent residency from sleeping outside amounts to “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Officials in Grants Pass, Oregon argue the ordinance is necessary to protect public spaces and encourage a growing tide of unhoused residents to seek shelter. A lower court ruled that punishing homeless people with fines and the possibility of jail time for public camping when they have nowhere else to go is unconstitutional.
A majority of Supreme Court justicesseemed to favorthe city's arguments when it heard the case in April.
Social media regulation and free speech
The Supreme Court will determine whetherstate laws restricting how social media companies moderate contentviolate the First Amendment.
The measures from Florida and Texas seek to place limits on how the private companies can manage user accounts and feeds on their platforms. Both were passed amid conservative concerns that Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, were censoring viewpoints on their site based on politics.
In another case, Murthy v. Missouri,the justices on Wednesday rejected a challengeto the Biden administration's communication with social media companies about misinformation on their sites about COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
Republican-led states and five individual users had argued the government's conduct amounted to illegally coercion, while the administration argued their contact with the companies was aimed at protecting national security and public health.
The justices struck down the challenge, stating the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue the government because they could not show the government outreach directly resulted in censorship of their views.
