American University
Examining the Supreme Court's Docket.pdf (77.49 kB)

Examining the Supreme Court's Docket

Download (77.49 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2024-05-17, 14:44 authored by Gavin Mitchell

The U.S. Supreme Court’s current term has been marked by a slew of major cases covering a wide range of topics, from former President Donald Trump’s legal battles to key issues of abortion rights, gun control, and social media regulation. [1] These cases, each with significant implications for American society, reflect the ongoing struggle to define and protect fundamental rights and freedoms in a rapidly changing world.

One of the most significant cases involves former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for his actions surrounding the 2020 election. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether a former president should enjoy immunity from criminal charges related to attempts to overturn election results. [2] This case has implications for the rule of law and the accountability of public officials, with conservative justices expressing concerns about the potential breadth of presidential immunity.

Historically, the issue of presidential immunity has been a subject of debate and contention. Previous cases, such as United States v. Nixon (1974) and Clinton v. Jones (1997), have addressed questions of executive privilege and immunity from civil lawsuits, respectively. [3]  In Nixon, the Court ruled the president is not above the law and must comply with judicial orders, even in matters related to national security. [4] Similarly, in Clinton, the Court held that a sitting president is not immune to civil litigation arising from actions unrelated to his official duties. [5]

The current case presents a unique set of circumstances, as it involves a former president facing criminal charges for his conduct while in office. If the Court were to grant Trump immunity from prosecution, it could establish a troubling precedent that undermines the principles of equal justice under the law. Such a decision would suggest that presidents are immune from legal consequences, even if their actions constitute criminal conduct.

Furthermore, there are broader implications for the separation of powers and the ability of the judicial branch to hold the executive branch accountable. If the Court were to uphold Trump’s immunity claim, it could signal an expansion of presidential power at the expense of the law. Conversely, if the Court were to reject the claim of immunity, it would reaffirm the principle that no one, even the president, is above the law.

Another loosely watched case revolves around state laws restricting access to abortion pills. The Court heard arguments on whether anti-abortion groups have legal standing to challenge these laws, signaling a potential shift in the Court’s approach to abortion rights. [6]  The outcome of this case has implications on reproductive rights, with conservative justices appearing skeptical of efforts to limit access to abortion-inducing medications. [7]

One key aspect of the case is the question of whether the challenging parties have the necessary legal standing to bring the case to the Court. [8] Moreover, the case raises questions about the proper role of the courts in adjudicating disputes over reproductive healthcare policies. 

Gun rights are also a central issue before the Court this term, particularly in the context of the legality of bump stocks. The Court heard arguments on whether the ban imposed during Trump’s presidency on bump stocks—devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns–is constitutional. [9] The Biden administration has appealed a lower court’s ruling in favor of a Texas gun shop owner who challenged the ban, raising questions about the balance between public safety and Second Amendment rights. [10]

One of the key issues at stake is the balance between individual gun rights and public safety concerns. The Court’s previous rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes, while also recognizing the government’s authority to regulate the possession and use of firearms to promote public safety. [11]

The current case presents a nuanced legal question regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. [12] The Court must weigh the government’s interest in preventing gun violence and protecting victims of domestic abuse against the individual right to possess firearms for self-defense.

The outcome of the case will hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and its application to the facts of the case. It remains to be seen whether the Court will reaffirm its previous rulings on gun rights or adopt a new approach that gives greater deference to government regulation of firearms in certain contexts.

Regardless of the Court’s decision, the case underscores the ongoing tension between gun rights and public safety concerns in the United States. It also highlights the need for a balanced and nuanced approach to gun regulation that respects both individual rights and the collective interest in preventing gun violence.

Furthermore, the Court’s consideration of social media regulation and the opioid epidemic underscores the complex intersection of technology, corporate responsibility, and public health. The case involves challenges to Texas and Florida laws that aim to restrict social media companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms. [12]

Supporters of these laws argue they are necessary to combat the spread of harmful and misleading content online, including misinformation about opioids and other drugs. By restricting social media companies' ability to moderate content, these laws seek to limit the dissemination of misinformation and protect public health. However, opponents of the laws argue they infringe on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and individuals by compelling them to host and distribute content they deem objectionable or harmful.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching implications of the regulation of social media and the broader debate over online content moderation and impact efforts to address the opioid epidemic and other public health crises through digital platforms.

In considering the legality of the laws in Texas and Florida, the Court must balance the government’s interest in protecting public health and safety with the constitutional rights of social media companies and individuals. It must also navigate the complex and evolving landscape of online communication, where the dissemination of information and the exercise of free speech are often intertwined with issues of public health and safety.

In addition to these high-profile cases, the Court is grappling with issues like workplace discrimination, tax law, and trademark rights, each of which carries its own set of implications for American society. [13] These cases touch upon fundamental principles of equality, fairness, and freedom of expression, reflecting the diverse array of concerns facing the nation.

As the Court deliberates on these critical cases, it is essential for citizens to remain vigilant and engaged in the legal process. The outcomes of these cases will have a profound impact on the rights and freedoms of all Americans, underscoring the need for public debate and advocacy to ensure the legal system remains true to its core principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

[1] Reuters, Major Cases Before the US Supreme Court this Term, Reuters (Apr. 25, 2024, 1:09 PM), 

[2] Id.

[3] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).

[4] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

[5] Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).

[6] Reuters, Major Cases (2024).

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

[12] Reuters, Major Cases (2024)

[13] Id.

[14] Id.



This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Juris Mentem Law Review. This article has been accepted for inclusion in the Juris Mentem Digital Collection. The Digital Collection is edited by Juris Mentem Staff but is not peer-reviewed by university faculty. For more information, visit: Questions can be directed to


Juris Mentem Law Review

Usage metrics

    Juris Mentem Digital Collection


    No categories selected



    Ref. manager