With the release of three opinions on Monday morning, the justices still have 30 decisions left to release – just under half of the Supreme Court’s docket for the term. We are still waiting on the court’s opinions in high-profile cases involving abortion, gun rights, and religion, but the justices are also tackling issues such as deference to administrative agencies, the “major questions” doctrine, and whether the Biden administration must continue to enforce the “remain in Mexico” program. Here are brief summaries of the 30 cases that have not yet been decided:

1. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (argued Nov. 3) is a challenge to the constitutionality of a New York law that requires anyone who wants a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. Courts in the state have defined “proper cause” to require applicants to show a special need to defend themselves, rather than a general need to protect oneself. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the most likely authors, because neither justice has written an opinion for November.
2. American Hospital Association v. Becerra (argued Nov. 30) is a dispute about payments by Medicare to hospitals for some of the drugs that go to outpatients. The question before the justices is whether Medicare’s interpretation of a 2003 law to reduce the reimbursement rates was entitled to Chevron deference – that is, the principle that courts should normally defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers.
3. Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation (argued Nov. 29) centers on how the Department of Health and Human Services calculates special Medicare payments to hospitals that serve a high percentage of low-income patients. And in particular, the case is a challenge to HHS’s interpretation of the phrases “entitled to” and “eligible for” to mean all patients who qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, even if those programs did not pay the patients’ hospital bills.
4. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (argued Dec. 1): Whether Mississippi’s ban on abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy is constitutional and, if so, whether the justices will overturn their landmark decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
5. The question before the court in United States v. Taylor (argued Dec. 7) is whether an attempted (but ultimately unsuccessful) robbery under the Hobbs Act, which criminalizes an attempt to commit robbery that affects interstate commerce, qualifies as a “crime of violence” for purposes of a federal law that makes it a federal crime to use a gun in a “crime of violence.”
6. Carson v. Makin (argued Dec. 8) is a challenge to the constitutionality of a Maine program that pays tuition for some students to attend private schools when their own school district does not operate a public secondary school.
7. Garland v. Gonzalez (argued Jan. 11): Whether non-citizens who have been ordered deported but claim that they are entitled to protection from removal because they may be tortured or persecuted in their home countries are entitled to a hearing after six months in custody before an immigration judge to determine whether they can be released on bond. The justices also asked the parties to brief whether the lower courts had the power to order the government to provide a class of similarly situated non-citizens with individualized hearings after six months in detention.
8. Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (argued Jan. 11): Whether non-citizens who have been ordered deported but claim that they are entitled to protection from removal to a country where they would be tortured or persecuted are entitled to a hearing after six months in custody before an immigration judge to determine whether they can be released on bond.
9. Concepcion v. United States (argued Jan. 19): Whether, when a court is deciding whether to resentence a defendant under the First Step Act, which gives federal district courts power to resentence offenders in light of changes in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, a district court must or may consider intervening developments, or whether such developments only come into play (if at all) after courts conclude that a sentence reduction is appropriate.
10. Denezpi v. United States (argued Feb. 22): Whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses – a trial court that operates in areas where tribes have jurisdiction over Native Americans, but where there are not tribal courts to fully exercise that jurisdiction – is a prosecution by a “federal agency” that can trigger the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, barring a later prosecution by a federal district court for a crime arising out of the same incident.
11. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (argued Feb. 22): Whether a federal law that bars on tribal lands any gaming activities “prohibited by the laws of the state of Texas” prohibits any type of gambling that is banned under state law, or also prohibits any gaming that the state regulates.
12. Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco (argued Feb. 23): Whether a group of 13 states, led by Arizona, can intervene to defend a controversial Trump-era rule that expanded the definition of “public charge,” a term in immigration law for people who are ineligible for a green card if the government believes that they are likely to rely too heavily on government assistance, when the Biden administration has declined to do so.
13. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (argued Feb. 28): A challenge to the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. One question before the court is whether the Republican-led states and the coal companies have a legal right to bring the case to the Supreme Court at all when the lower court’s decision is on hold until the Biden EPA issues a new rule. If they do have that right, a second question before the justices is whether the lower court’s decision violates the “major questions” doctrine — the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” it must say so clearly.
14. Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita (argued Mar. 1): A dispute over the interpretation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, which bars health plans from considering whether an individual is eligible for Medicare benefits because they suffer from kidney failure and from providing different benefits to such individuals.
15. Ruan v. United States (argued Mar. 1): Whether a doctor who has the authority to prescribe controlled substances can be convicted for unlawful distribution of those drugs when he reasonably believed that his prescriptions fell within professional norms.
16. Egbert v. Boule (argued Mar. 2): Whether the owner of an inn on the U.S.-Canada border can bring a First Amendment retaliation claim and Fourth Amendment claims involving immigration enforcement against a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
17. Berger v. North Carolina Conference of the NAACP (argued Mar. 21): Whether a pair of Republican legislators in North Carolina can intervene to defend the state’s voter-ID law when the state’s Democratic attorney general is already defending the law.
18. Golan v. Saada (argued Mar. 22): Whether, in cases brought seeking the return of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, courts are required to consider all measures that might reduce the grave risk of harm if a child were to return harm.
19. ZF Automotive US v. Luxshare (argued Mar. 23): Whether a federal law that allows litigants to invoke the power of U.S. courts to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal” applies to private commercial arbitral tribunals.
20. Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety (argued Mar. 29): Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against states, without their consent, under its constitutional war powers.
21. Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (argued Mar. 30): Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise claims on behalf of others, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.
22. United States v. Washington (argued April 18): This case is a challenge by the federal government to a special Washington state worker’s compensation law for federal contract workers employed at the Hanford site in the state, which produced weapons-grade plutonium for the U.S. nuclear program but also generated large amounts of radioactive waste. The law creates a presumption that workers will be eligible for benefits if they contract certain diseases, including cancer.
23. Kemp v. United States (argued April 19): Whether a district court can reopen a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which allows the court to do so because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” if the original judgment was based on a legal error by the district court.
24. George v. McDonough (argued April 19): Whether the denial of a veteran’s claim for benefits that relies on an agency’s interpretation that is later deemed invalid is the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that allows the veteran to challenge an otherwise-final decision.
25. Vega v. Tekoh (argued April 20): Whether a plaintiff can bring a federal civil-rights claim against a police officer based on the officer’s failure to provide a Miranda warning.
26. Nance v. Ward (argued April 25): A case involving the procedures by which an inmate must raise his challenge to the method by which the state intends to execute him.
27. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (argued April 25): Whether a public school district violated the rights of a high school football coach when it restricted him from praying on the field after games.
28. Shoop v. Twyford (argued April 26): A case involving, among other things, whether a court must determine whether evidence would help an inmate seeking a writ of habeas corpus and whether the court can consider that evidence before the court grants an order allowing the inmate to develop new evidence.
29. Biden v. Texas (argued April 26): Whether the Department of Homeland Security must continue to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, a policy begun by President Donald Trump that requires asylum seekers at the southern border to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing in U.S. immigration court.
30. Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (argued April 27): Whether a state has authority to prosecute defendants who are not Native Americans, but who commit crimes against Native Americans on land that Congress historically reserved for Native people.