All of these could move votes in November

The Supreme Court‘s 2023 term is winding down with several of the largest and most impactful cases yet to be decided before the justices depart at the end of the month for their annual recess.

Why it matters: In the middle of a fraught election season where the court’s credibility has been challenged, the Supreme Court has yet to issue decisions in cases touching on former President Trump‘s wide-ranging claim to immunity from prosecution, abortion rights, the power of the executive branch and gun rights.

Presidential immunity

Perhaps the largest outstanding question before the Supreme Court is deciding whether Trump is immune from prosecution for acts committed while in office.

  • The decision will come as Trump’s two federal cases — on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents after he left office — hang in the balance.
  • The court appeared poised to grant Trump at least a partial victory during oral arguments in April.

Jan. 6 obstruction

The Supreme Court will rule whether prosecutors can use a federal obstruction statute to charge Jan. 6 rioters.

  • The cases centers around the application of the Enron-inspired Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which prohibits obstructing or impeding an official proceeding.
  • The case’s plaintiff — Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer — argued that the statute is intended only to apply to congressional inquiries or investigations. The court will decide whether it applies to a broader scope of obstructive conduct.
  • The ruling could significantly reduce the number of charges Trump faces in his Jan. 6 case and complicate hundreds of prosecutions related to the Capitol riot, per the New York Times.

Abortion pills

A challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone sets up the most significant abortion-related case since the Supreme Court overturned of Roe v. Wade two years ago.

  • The court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions in recent years increasing access to mifepristone — expanding the timeframe of when it could be used and allowing patients to get it by mail — should stand.
  • Nearly two-thirds of all abortions performed in the U.S. used mifepristone in 2023.
  • In addition to having major implications on access to medication abortion, the ruling could have broader ramifications on the FDA’s regulatory authority.

Emergency abortion care

The Supreme Court must also decide whether Idaho’s strict state abortion ban overrides a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care to patients.

  • The ruling could major implications for states with near-total abortion bans that lack exemptions for the health of the patient, such as in cases where patients face serious medical complications that may not be imminently lethal — such as kidney failure or infection — but could have long-term consequences.
  • The Idaho law only allows abortion when necessary to save a patient’s life. The Justice Department challenged the law in a lawsuit, arguing the exception was “extremely narrow” and violated the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

Federal agency power

The Supreme Court is also weighing a challenge to one of its own decades-old doctrines guiding how much latitude federal agencies enjoy while implementing the laws they are charged to enforce.

  • The court’s 40-year-old “Chevron deference” doctrine posits that in cases when statutes are unclear, courts will defer to the interpretation of the agency tasked with implementing that statute, as long as that interpretation is deemed reasonable.
  • Overturning Chevron would weaken federal agencies, handing courts more power to decide how the executive branch should implement laws.
  • For decades, conservatives have sought to chip away at the executive branch’s ability to act without Congressional approval.
  • A decision to overturn Chevron could impact federal agencies’ abilities to craft regulations, including in areas like the environment, health care,

Gun rights

In U.S. v. Rahimi, the court will decide whether a law that bans people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms violates the Second Amendment.

  • In a second guns-related case, Garland v. Cargill, the court will decide whether the Trump administration erred in implementing a ban on bump stocks — a device that can be attached to a semiautomatic gun to enable it to continuously fire with a single pull of the trigger.

Go deeper: