With just a few days remaining in June, the Supreme Court still has roughly 13 opinions (assuming that it issues separate decisions in the challenges to social-media laws in Florida and Texas) to release. The justices are scheduled to take the bench on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week to announce opinions, which should put a significant dent in the number of remaining opinions — or dispose of them entirely. Here are brief summaries of each of the as-yet-undecided cases:

1. SEC v. Jarkesy (argued Nov. 29, 2023): Whether the structure and enforcement powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission violate the Constitution. The case began as an administrative proceeding by the SEC against George Jarkesy, an investment adviser and the founder of a hedge fund. The SEC ruled that Jarkesy and his firm had committed securities fraud, and it ordered them to pay $300,000 in fines and nearly double that in repayments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with Jarkesy and held that three different aspects of the SEC’s operations are unconstitutional.
2. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma (argued Dec. 4, 2023): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit was correct to approve a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, that would release members of the Sackler family, which owned the company but did not declare bankruptcy, from any future liability for claims against them. The justices agreed last summer to put the bankruptcy plan on hold while it reviewed the challenge, brought by (among others) the federal government, to the plan’s legality. A bankruptcy judge originally approved the plan in 2021, reasoning that although the confirmation was a “bitter result” it was also the only way to provide funding for communities to address the problems caused by opioids.
3. Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (argued Jan. 17, 2024): Whether the Supreme Court should overrule or limit its 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which it held that when a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law as long as it is reasonable. The question comes to the court in a challenge to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, of having observers on fishing boats to collect data about the boats’ catches.
4. Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (argued Feb. 20, 2024): Whether the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begins to run when the agency issues the rule or instead when the plaintiff is actually injured. The question comes to the court in a challenge to a rule issued by the Federal Reserve in 2011 that caps debit-card processing fees. Because the truck stop challenging the rule did not open for business until 2018, it contends that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until it processed its first debit-card transaction that year.
5. Ohio v. EPA (argued Feb. 21, 2024): Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily block a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities while litigation continues. The case arises from the EPA’s interpretation of a law known as the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind” states.
6. Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton (argued Feb. 26, 2024): Whether laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and X control content posted on their sites violate the First Amendment. The two states passed the laws in 2021 in response to a belief that social media companies were censoring their users, especially those with conservative views. A federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked Florida from enforcing most of its law, while a different appeals court upheld the Texas law, although the Supreme Court put it on hold while the challenge by tech groups continued.
7. Murthy v. Missouri (argued March 18, 2024): Whether the federal government’s conduct transformed content-moderation decisions by private social media companies into government action and therefore violated the First Amendment, and whether the challengers have a legal right to bring their lawsuit. The plaintiffs in this case – two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded – challenged the Biden administration’s efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. They argued that the administration’s actions had violated social media users’ rights to free speech.
8. Snyder v. United States (argued April 15, 2024): Whether federal bribery laws make it a crime to accept payment for something a government official has already done, without any prior agreement to take those actions in exchange for payment. The question comes to the court in the case of the former mayor of Portage, Ind., who received $13,000 from a trucking company after the town of Portage bought a trash truck from the company.
9. Fischer v. United States (argued April 16, 2024): Whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.
10. City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (argued April 22, 2024): Whether an ordinance in an Oregon city that bars people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
11. Moyle v. United States (argued April 24, 2024): Whether a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires emergency rooms at hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment,” can sometimes trump an Idaho law that makes it a crime to provide an abortion except in a handful of narrow circumstances, including to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. The Biden administration brought this case shortly after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, and two lower courts barred Idaho from enforcing its law to the extent it conflicted with EMTALA. However, the Supreme Court put those orders on hold earlier this year.
12. Trump v. United States (argued April 25, 2024): Whether (and, if so, to what extent) a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts while in office. The question comes to the court in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election.