The Supreme Court enters its final week before summer recess and has 10 more cases pending.
The Supreme Court has postponed some of its most politically controversial battles for this week, including affirmative actions and student loans.
The decisions will be made at a time when the court is under fire for hospitalizing judges with ultra-wealthy members of the business class – sometimes by accepting free gifts from friends who would later do business for the court.
Here are the most watched cases still on the roll:
Biden’s student loan forgiveness: Giving the green light to the $400 billion program would be a political boon for the president with young voters
The Supreme Court is considering two challenges to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program — which would forgive between $10,000 and $20,000 in debt for those earning less than $125,000.
After payments were delayed due to the pandemic, the Department of Education (DOE) instituted the plan using the post-9/11 HEROES Act — a bill designed to waive wartime payments. The bill allows the secretary of education to waive “any statutory or regulatory provision” regarding the repayment of student loans during “a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
Republicans challenging the policy say Biden has overstepped his authority by allowing forgiveness without Congressional authorization. Chief John Roberts and the court’s other conservatives have already expressed skepticism about the plan.
Activists and students protest in front of the Supreme Court during a student debt cancellation meeting
The court must decide whether entrepreneurs can refuse to offer goods and services to LGBTQ weddings
In 2018, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of baker Jack Phillips when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but left the broader question of whether companies can deny services to LGBTQ customers based on religious beliefs airborne.
At the center of this case is Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who wants to expand her business and create wedding websites, but wants to be able to refuse to create websites for gay couples because of religious objections to same-sex marriage.
Smith has not moved on with the company and has filed a lawsuit against Colorado’s public lodging law, which says companies cannot refuse to serve LGBTQ people.
Smith has said she is willing to work with all people, but draws the line at producing websites that celebrate same-sex marriage, while LGBTQ advocates say she is seeking a license to discriminate.
During oral arguments, the Conservatives in court appeared to view the case through a lens of free speech and suggested that artists should not be forced to express a message that conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Affirmative Action: Schools like Harvard consider race in admissions decisions — but that may be coming to an end
A conservative group is asking the court to overturn decades of precedent in race-conscious admissions policies that schools say help them achieve diversity on campus.
The University of North Carolina and Harvard argue in court that race is one of many factors in their eligibility criteria. Student advocates for fair admissions argue that Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 decision that desegregated schools, requires racial neutrality.
During rows, judges on both sides of the aisle seemed to agree that race shouldn’t be a factor in admission forever — but disagreed on whether the conditions are met to abolish affirmative action.
The right side of the bench seems poised to go against the schools — which would be a big win for affirmative action opponents who say admissions should be colorblind to avoid discrimination against other groups, including Asian Americans.
Protesters against Harvard University’s admissions process hold placards and American flags during a protest at Copley Square in Boston, Massachusetts
State legislature wants unchecked authority to redraw congressional tickets – can gerrymander be used in favor of any party rules
This case could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. election map — depending on whether or not the court grants state lawmakers autonomy in drawing congressional district boundaries.
The Moore v. Harper case, brought by Republicans in North Carolina, arose after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s 2022 congressional map — deeming it an illegal partisan gerrymander and replacing it with court-drawn maps favoring Democrats.
North Carolina legislators cited the Constitution’s electoral clause which states that the “method of conducting elections for senators and representatives” in “each state shall be prescribed by the legislature thereof.”
The long-dormant doctrine they cite, the Independent Legislature Theory, says that state legislatures should be able to make rules with little to no interference from courts.
If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina Republicans, Democrat-led state lawmakers could also use the case to argue in their own favor.
Religious accommodation: Court considers whether postal worker can refuse to work on Sunday for religious reasons
A former postman, an evangelical Christian, has sued the postal service for not granting his request not to work on Sundays.
A lower court ruled against the employee, Gerald Groff, arguing that his request would create an “unnecessary burden” on the USPS and force other employees to take on work for him.
But the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to Groff during oral arguments, hinting that they may have thought the lower court was too quick to rule against him.