News
The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2024
No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society.
The consequential cases, with decisions arriving by late June or early July, include three affecting former President Donald J. Trump, two on abortion, two on guns, three on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and three on the administrative state.
In recent years, some of the court’s biggest decisions have been out of step with public opinion. Researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas conducted a survey in March to help explore whether that gap persists.
Trump’s Ballot Eligibility
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
A decision that Mr. Trump was ineligible to hold office would have been a political earthquake altering the course of American history.
Where does the public stand?
| Think Trump is eligible to run in 2024 | Think Trump is not eligible |
Immunity for Former Presidents
Is there a major precedent involved?
But in 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a closely divided court ruled that Nixon, by then out of office, was absolutely immune from civil lawsuits “for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The court’s decision will determine whether and when Mr. Trump will face trial for his attempts to overturn his 2020 loss at the polls.
Where does the public stand?
| Think former presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president | Think former presidents are immune |
Obstruction Charges for Jan. 6 Assault
Is there a major precedent involved?
In a series of decisions, the court has narrowed the reach of federal criminal laws aimed at public corruption and white-collar crime.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case has the potential to knock out half of the federal charges against former President Donald J. Trump for plotting to subvert the 2020 election and could complicate hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions.
Where does the public stand?
| Think the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were criminal | Think the events were not criminal |
Abortion Pills
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case will determine whether access to the drug, which is used in the majority of abortions in the United States, will be sharply curtailed.
Where does the public stand?
| Think the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone should not be revoked | Think the approval should be revoked |
Emergency Abortion Care
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care to all patients overrides a state law, in Idaho, that imposes a near-total ban on abortion.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
It is the first time the Supreme Court is considering a state law criminalizing abortion since it overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision may affect more than a dozen states that have passed near-total bans on abortion.
Where does the public stand?
| Think Idaho hospitals must provide abortions in medical emergencies | Think they are not allowed |
Second Amendment Rights of Domestic Abusers
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Lower courts have struck down federal laws prohibiting people who have been convicted of felonies or who use drugs from owning guns.
The court may start to clear up the confusion it created in the Bruen decision, in the first major test of its expansion of gun rights. The standard it announced has left lower courts in turmoil as they struggle to hunt down references to obscure or since-forgotten regulations.
Where does the public stand?
| Think barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms does not violate their Second Amendment rights | Think it violates their rights |
Restrictions on the Homeless
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The Supreme Court will decide whether ordinances in Oregon aimed at preventing homeless people from sleeping and camping outside violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case could have major ramifications on how far cities across the country can go to clear homeless people from streets and other public spaces.
Where does the public stand?
| Think banning homeless people from camping outside even when local shelters are full violates the Constitution | Think it does not violate the Constitution |
Social Media Platforms’ First Amendment Rights
Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton
The laws’ supporters argue that the measures are needed to combat perceived censorship of conservative views on issues like the coronavirus pandemic and claims of election fraud. Critics of the laws say the First Amendment prevents the government from telling private companies whether and how to disseminate speech.
Is there a major precedent involved?
In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the court said a state constitutional provision that required private shopping centers to allow expressive activities on their property did not violate the centers’ First Amendment rights.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The cases arrive garbed in politics, as they concern laws aimed at protecting conservative speech. But the larger question the cases present transcends ideology. It is whether tech platforms have free speech rights to make editorial judgments.
Where does the public stand?
| Think states cannot prevent social media companies from censoring speech | Think states should be able to prevent censoring |
Disinformation on Social Media
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The Supreme Court is also considering a case that raises similar issues, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, about whether a state official in New York violated the First Amendment by encouraging companies to stop doing business with the National Rifle Association.
The case is a major test of the role of the First Amendment in the internet era, requiring the court to consider when government efforts to limit the spread of misinformation amount to censorship of constitutionally protected speech.
Where does the public stand?
| Think federal officials urging private companies to block or remove users violates the First Amendment | Think it does not violate the First Amendment |
N.R.A. and the First Amendment
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
The Supreme Court will decide whether a New York State official violated the First Amendment by trying to persuade companies not to do business with the National Rifle Association after the school shooting in Parkland, Fla.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case is one of two that will determine when government advocacy edges into violating free speech rights. The other, Murthy v. Missouri, concerns the Biden administration’s dealings with social media companies.
The case centers on when persuasion by government officials crosses into coercion.
Where does the public stand?
| Think the state regulator’s behavior violates the N.R.A.’s First Amendment rights | Think it does not violate the N.R.A.’s rights |
Opioids Settlement
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
Is there a major precedent involved?
The case is the first time the Supreme Court will address whether a bankruptcy plan can be structured to give civil legal immunity to a third party, without the consent of all potential claimholders. The legal maneuver under scrutiny has become increasingly popular in bankruptcy settlements.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Approving the deal would funnel money toward states and others who have waited for years for some kind of settlement. Yet the Sacklers would be largely absolved from future opioid-related claims. More broadly, the case may have implications for similar agreements insulating a third party from liability.
Where does the public stand?
| Think the Sackler family should not keep immunity from future lawsuits | Think family should keep immunity |
Racial Gerrymandering
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. A series of Supreme Court decisions say that making race the predominant factor in drawing voting districts violates the Constitution.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The Alabama case was governed by the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights statute, and the one from South Carolina by the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The case concerns a constitutional puzzle: how to distinguish the roles of race and partisanship in drawing voting maps when Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats. The difference matters because the Supreme Court has said that only racial gerrymandering may be challenged in federal court under the Constitution.
Where does the public stand?
| Think these changes to the districts are unconstitutional | Think they are constitutional |
Power of Federal Agencies
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo; Relentless v. Department of Commerce
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. Chevron is one of the most cited cases in American law.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
“The question is less whether this court should overrule Chevron,” Paul D. Clement, one of the lawyers for the challengers, told the justices, “and more whether it should let lower courts and citizens in on the news.”
Overturning the decision could threaten regulations on the environment, health care, consumer safety, nuclear energy, government benefit programs and guns. It would also shift power from agencies to Congress and to judges.
Where does the public stand?
| Courts should defer to administrative agencies when laws are unclear | Courts should not defer to agencies |
Agency Funding
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America
Is there a major precedent involved?
There is no precedent squarely on point.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
A ruling against the bureau, created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the financial crisis, could cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it took in the dozen years of its existence. That includes agency rules — and punishments against companies that flout them — involving mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking.
Where does the public stand?
| Think this agency funding structure is unconstitutional | Think it is constitutional |
Administrative Courts
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
A ruling against the S.E.C. would not only require it to file cases in federal court but could also imperil administrative tribunals at many other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the National Labor Relations Board.
Where does the public stand?
| Think federal agencies bringing actions in administrative proceedings rather than in federal courts is not constitutional | Think it is constitutional |
Cross-State Air Pollution
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Prevailing winds carry emissions of nitrogen oxide toward Eastern states with fewer industrial sites. The pollutant causes smog and is linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death.
Bump Stocks for Guns
Is there a major precedent involved?
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case involves how to interpret a federal law that banned machine guns, the National Firearms Act of 1934. The definition was broadened by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun. At issue is whether bump stocks fall within those definitions. Federal appeals courts have split on the issue.
A decision could do away with one of the few efforts at gun control that gained political traction after the Las Vegas massacre in 2017. More broadly, a ruling could help clarify the scope of the power of federal agencies.
Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.
The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.
The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.
According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.
Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.
“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”
Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.
The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.
Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.
The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.
Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.
Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.
Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.
Republicans are seeking a way around a filibuster on D.H.S. funding.
The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.
“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”
In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.
The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.
Democrats used the moment to hammer Republicans on affordability.
Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.
“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”
Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.
Republicans blocked Democrats’ proposals to address high living costs.
The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.
Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.
Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.
Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.
Republicans sought to amplify their hard-line messages on immigration, voter I.D. and transgender care.
While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.
Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.
Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.
The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.
The firing of US Navy Secretary John Phelan is the latest in a shakeup of the American military during the war on Iran, now in its eighth week.
The Pentagon said Phelan would leave office immediately.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” said chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. “We wish him well in his future endeavours”.
His firing comes at a critical moment, with US naval forces enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, and maintaining a heavy presence around the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime.
Although the Pentagon gave no official reason for the dismissal, reports indicate the decision was linked to internal disputes, including tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Phelan’s removal is part of a broader pattern of dismissals and restructuring within the US military under President Donald Trump’s administration – including during the current war.
So, who is John Phelan, and what impact could his firing have on US military strategy?
Who is John Phelan?
As the US Navy’s top civilian official, Phelan had various responsibilities, including overseeing recruiting, mobilising and organising, as well as construction and repair of ships and military equipment.
He was appointed in 2024 as a political ally of Trump, despite having no prior military or defence leadership experience.
Before entering government, Phelan was a businessman and investment executive, as well as a major Republican donor and fundraiser — a background that is fairly common among Trump appointees and advisers. The US president’s two top diplomatic negotiators, for instance, are Steve Witkoff — a real estate businessman with no prior diplomatic experience – and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
According to the Reuters news agency, Phelan’s tenure quickly became controversial. He faced criticism for moving too slowly on shipbuilding reforms and for strained relationships with key Pentagon figures, including Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg.
In addition, Phelan was reportedly under an ethics investigation, which may have weakened his standing in the administration.
Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao, who was also reported to have a difficult relationship with Phelan, has become acting secretary. Fifty-four-year-old Cao is a 25-year Navy veteran who previously ran as a Republican candidate for the US Senate and House of Representatives in 2022 and 2024 respectively, but was unsuccessful on both occasions.
Democrats have criticised Phelan’s removal, calling it “troubling”.
“I am concerned it is yet another example of the instability and dysfunction that have come to define the Department of Defense under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth,” said Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Who else has the Trump administration fired since the war with Iran began?
Phelan’s removal is the latest in a series of senior military leaders being fired or are leaving during the US-Israeli war on Iran, in addition to others since Trump was re-elected.
Among the most notable dismissals was Army Chief of Staff General Randy A. George, in the first week of April. George was appointed in 2023 under former US President Joe Biden.
According to reports, Hegseth also fired the head of the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, a unit concerned with modernising the army, and the Army’s chief of chaplains. The Pentagon has not confirmed their dismissal.
Why is Phelan’s dismissal significant?
The 62-year-old’s removal comes during a fragile ceasefire with Iran, as the US continues to move more naval assets into the region.
The Navy is central to enforcing Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports to restrict Iran’s oil exports and apply economic pressure on Tehran, as the US president looks eager to wrap up the war, which is deeply unpopular to many Americans.
However, there are no indications that Trump is willing to end the blockade or other naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran have come to a standstill.
Tensions have escalated in recent days after the US military seized an Iranian container ship. The US claimed it was attempting to sail from the Arabian Sea through the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.
Tehran responded by describing the attack and hijack as an act of “piracy”.
Iran has since captured two cargo ships and fired at another.
-
Politics57 seconds agoTrump Cabinet member scraps Obama-era gender identity housing rule, cites ‘biological reality’
-
Health7 minutes agoRiley Gaines shares 5 wellness tips she swears by as a new mom: ‘Really powerful’
-
Sports13 minutes agoChiefs and Browns make first trade of 2026 draft and both eventually fill needs
-
Technology19 minutes agoHow Florida retiree lost $200K in fake PayPal refund scam
-
Business25 minutes agoSenate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes
-
Entertainment31 minutes agoFormer Live Nation executive says he was fired after raising ‘financial misconduct’ concerns
-
Lifestyle37 minutes agoThey set out to elevate karaoke in L.A. — and opened a glamorous lounge that pulls out all the stops
-
Politics43 minutes agoHouse Oversight chair says some members support a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon