The Supreme Court term finally closed today, with a long-awaited ruling from the justices that will likely echo down the decades through American politics and law. In Trump v. United States, the conservative majority determined that the U.S. president has broad immunity for acts taken in the official role of president. The decision has the effect of narrowing the basis on which special counsel Jack Smith can prosecute former President Donald Trump for actions he allegedly took to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The ultimate effect could be that Trump may never face trial in the case.

There were other consequential Trump-related cases, including one that determined whether he could appear on the presidential ballot in Colorado and other states. The court said he could.

And there was also a ruling that upended decades of administrative law in the U.S., in a fisheries case where the justices “overturned the 40-year-old legal tenet that when a federal statute is silent or ambiguous about a particular regulatory issue, courts should defer to the implementing agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law,” as legal scholar Robin Kundis Craig wrote in a story for us. Prepare for a tsunami of lawsuits challenging agency rules in areas from health care to labor.

There were rulings on other hot-button issues, including the abortion drug mifepristone; a ruling that blocked the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement that paid money to victims; and a ruling that will affect the lives of those experiencing homelessness across the country.

The Conversation’s editors worked with scholars who specialize in everything from criminal to environmental to administrative law to provide you with research-based analysis on these and many other cases the Supreme Court considered this term. We offer you today a selection of them in this newsletter, along with stories that analyze some larger issues regarding both the thinking of the justices and how scholars of history are increasingly trying to contribute to that thinking.

Naomi Schalit

Senior Editor, Politics + Democracy
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Allison Edge/iStock/Getty Images Plus

‘Above the law’ in some cases: Supreme Court gives Trump − and future presidents − a special exception that will delay his prosecution

Claire B. Wofford, College of Charleston

The Supreme Court’s decision has major implications for the criminal prosecution of Trump and for the country and how it is governed.
Two fishing companies challenged regulations that required Atlantic herring fishers to pay some costs for observers on their boats. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Robin Kundis Craig, University of Kansas

A widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling will sharply limit federal agencies’ power to interpret the laws that they execute and decide how best to carry them out.
Activists on both sides of the abortion battle are gearing up for it to be a major issue in the 2024 election. Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

Supreme Court unanimously concludes that anti-abortion groups have no standing to challenge access to mifepristone – but the drug likely faces more court challenges

Naomi Cahn, University of Virginia; Sonia Suter, George Washington University

The opinion did not take on the substance of the plaintiffs’ claims against mifepristone, and the abortion pill is already facing other challenges.

Supreme Court makes prosecution of Trump on obstruction charge more difficult, with ruling to narrowly define law used against him and Jan. 6 rioters

Riley T. Keenan, University of Richmond

Government prosecutors, ruled the Supreme Court, stretched the meaning of a law that’s been used to prosecute those alleged to have participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol.

Supreme Court rules cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outdoors – Sotomayor dissent summarizes opinion as ‘stay awake or be arrested’

Clare Pastore, University of Southern California

In a major homelessness ruling, the Supreme Court holds that cities and municipalities can punish people for sleeping outside, even when they have nowhere else to go.

Supreme Court kicks cases about tech companies’ First Amendment rights back to lower courts − but appears poised to block states from hampering online content moderation

Lynn Greenky, Syracuse University

Florida and Texas sought to prevent social media companies from deciding which posts can be promoted, demoted or blocked. The Supreme Court said the tech companies can moderate as they please.

Supreme Court rejects settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma over legal protections for the Sackler family that owned the company

Jonathan Lipson, Temple University

The company helped spur a public health crisis through its deceptive marketing and aggressive sales of prescription opioids.

Supreme Court sidesteps case on whether federal law on medical emergencies overrides Idaho’s abortion ban

Naomi Cahn, University of Virginia; Sonia Suter, George Washington University

The Supreme Court conceded that it should not have taken up the case to begin with.

Supreme Court rules that Trump had partial immunity as president, but not for unofficial acts − 4 essential reads

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation; Naomi Schalit, The Conversation; Amy Lieberman, The Conversation

The dissenting judges argued that the Supreme Court’s decision will dramatically expand the president’s powers while in office.