The Supreme Court is set to hand down key decisions this week on student debt relief, affirmative action and federal election laws as it enters the last week of its summer session with 10 cases pending.
The court has given no indication it will break its norm of finishing decisions by the end of June, and the next batch is slated to be released Tuesday morning.
Beyond the decisions, the court is also forming its docket for the next term. The justices Monday could announce whether they will take up several high-profile cases, including on guns, racial discrimination and qualified immunity.
Here are the remaining cases as the Supreme Court wraps up its annual term:
Student Debt Relief
President Biden’s plan to forgive student debt for more than 40 million borrowers will soon be greenlighted or blocked, depending on how the justices rule.
Biden’s plan would forgive up to $10,000 for borrowers who meet income requirements and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
But the debt relief remains on hold until the Supreme Court resolves two lawsuits challenging the plan.
If either succeeds, the debt relief will be blocked.
During oral arguments, the conservative majority cast doubt that the administration had the authority to cancel the debts, expected to amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.
But before they can strike down the plan as unlawful, the justices must first decide whether any of the challengers have legal standing.
The six GOP-led states and two individual borrowers challenging the plan have promoted various arguments.
Missouri’s argument received the most attention, and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in questioning the state’s theory during oral argument.
The cases are Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.
Affirmative Action
When the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in college admissions in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her majority opinion made a temporal prediction:
“The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” she wrote.
That landmark decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, marked its 20th anniversary Friday.
It might not reach its 21st.
The justices have been weighing whether to overturn Grutter — and decades of affirmative action programs in higher education along with it — in challenges to admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
During oral argument, the majority appeared skeptical of upholding race-conscious college admissions.
Each justice tends to write no more than one majority opinion for each monthly argument session.
Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh have not yet issued majority opinions for any cases argued in November, when the affirmative action challenges were heard, meaning one of them is the likely author.
The cases are Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.
Same-sex wedding websites
Web designer Lorie Smith, an evangelical Christian, is challenging Colorado’s public accommodation law on free speech grounds.
Like many other states, Colorado’s law prohibits businesses that serve the public from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Smith wants to expand her business to create wedding websites. But Colorado’s law would demand she create same-sex wedding websites if she wants to do so for opposite-sex unions, and Smith is vehemently opposed to gay marriage.
The justices are now set to decide whether public accommodation laws, as applied to Smith and other artists, violate the First Amendment by compelling their speech.
The conservative majority signaled support for Smith during oral argument.
Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch appear to be the likely pool of authors, because they are the two remaining justices who have not issued majority opinions from a case argued in December.
The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory
The court is weighing a major election clash that will decide who has the final word on setting federal election rules.
North Carolina Republican lawmakers appealed a state court ruling that struck down their congressional map, promoting to the justices a sweeping argument known as the “independent state legislature” theory.
That theory asserts that state legislatures have exclusive authority to set federal election rules under the Constitution.
Adopting it would claw back the ability of state courts and state constitutions to block legislatures’ congressional map designs and other regulations surrounding federal elections.
It’s possible, however, that the court tosses the case without reaching the theory’s merits.
As the justices considered the case, Republicans regained control of North Carolina’s top court and overturned the underlying decision that struck down the state’s congressional map.
The Supreme Court has been paying close attention to whether they still have jurisdiction in the case, a potential offramp from the high-stakes dispute.
Based on the decisions released so far, Roberts or Gorsuch appears to be the likely author of the majority opinion.
The case is Moore v. Harper.
Other cases
The court has four other cases remaining.
In Groff v. DeJoy, the justices will decide whether the U.S. Postal Service had to accommodate postal worker Gerald Groff’s request to not work on Sundays for religious reasons. The decision could change the standard for when businesses must provide religious accommodations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In Counterman v. Colorado, the court is grappling with a man’s appeal of his stalking conviction on First Amendment grounds. The high court has long carved out “true threats” as an exception to free speech protections, and the case will clarify when it applies: when a reasonable person regards the statement as a threat of violence, or only when the speaker intended for it to be threatening.
In a case closely watched by business interests, the justices in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. are weighing a constitutional challenge to a Pennsylvania law, which mandates that corporations doing business there consent that state courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits against the company.
In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc., the justices are weighing whether federal law can be used to punish trademark infringement if the infringement happens overseas.