CNN
—
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its final opinion on the mandate Monday morning, resolving the question of whether former President Donald Trump can claim immunity from federal election subversion charges.
Exceeding their unofficial deadline of late June by just one day, the nine justices will meet on the bench for the final time before rising for their summer vacation – likely leaving in their wake a wave of legal wrangling over their final decisions.
By far the most important case still pending is whether Trump is entitled to the blanket immunity he seeks from election subversion charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Trump has argued that without immunity, presidents would be hamstrung in office, always fearing challenge from an overzealous prosecutor after leaving the White House. That position appeared to carry some weight with the conservative Supreme Court, which voted 6-3 in April’s oral arguments.
The answer to this question could have profound implications for Trump and future presidents. During the CNN debate Thursday, Trump said President Joe Biden “could be a convicted felon with everything he’s done.” This response came in response to a question from CNN’s Jake Tapper about whether Trump would seek revenge against his political opponents. Trump initially responded by saying his “revenge would be a success” but then launched into a series of accusations against Biden.
The immunity issue will likely come down to whether Trump’s post-election actions were “official” — that is, actions taken within the scope of his presidential duties — or whether they were “private,” which would likely not attract immunity.
The Court will also rule on two cases at the intersection of the First Amendment and social media. These are laws passed in Florida and Texas aimed at preventing social media giants like Facebook and X from restricting conservative views. Laws in these states prohibit online platforms from removing or demoting posts that express opinions, such as political content.
Republican governors who signed the laws said they were needed to prevent social media platforms from discriminating against conservatives.
In some ways, the underlying dispute is not as significant as it might have been when the complaints were first filed. Since Elon Musk bought X and changed the company’s content moderation policies, conservatives are less likely to accuse the social media giant of limiting their opinions. But the case nevertheless raised fundamental First Amendment questions that could have a broad impact.
At the center of the two disputes is the question of whether preserving the publications falls within the protection of speech – in the same way that media outlets are entitled to First Amendment protection in the way they design their front pages or their queues – or if social media platforms simply convey third parties. -party publications to readers in a way that would allow the government to regulate them more closely.
One final case to be decided involves a North Dakota truck stop that is challenging fees banks can charge for debit card transactions. This decision could have more far-reaching implications for other government regulations. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the truck stop can sue, given the six-year statute of limitations for challenging government regulations.
This is a technical question but with potentially significant ramifications. The federal government has warned that if the court sides with the truck stop, it could open the floodgates to similar challenges to government rules.
The decisions will cap a period in which the Supreme Court largely sidestepped the underlying issues in two major abortion-related cases. She sided with the Biden administration on one gun regulation and rejected one federal ban on bump stocks over another. The court on Friday narrowed the scope of charges brought by prosecutors against hundreds of people who participated in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Beyond the rulings, the Supreme Court’s tenure has also been marred by controversies outside the court, including a series of articles documenting that controversial flags — including an upside-down American flag — had been flown on property owned to Justice Samuel Alito. An activist who identified herself as a religious conservative at a Supreme Court event released secret recordings of Alito and his wife, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, discussing a series of politically sensitive topics .
Finally, in a blatant breach of protocol, the Court inadvertently published a draft of its opinion in a major abortion case a day before the official release. In that case, the Court ended a dispute between Idaho and the Biden administration over the state’s strict abortion ban, temporarily blocking enforcement of that ban in public health emergencies while the underlying litigation continues.
