The Supreme Court will hear several blockbuster cases in the second half 2023-2024. These include the First Amendment rights of companies that operate social media, the abortion pill, and the power of federal agency.

The high court resumes oral arguments after a short winter break on Jan. 8. These will continue throughout the spring and opinions are expected in early summer.

Watch out for these high-profile cases.

NRA FIND SURPRISING ally IN ACLU FOR SUPREME CREEK CHALLENGE OF NY BLACKLIST ACCUSATION

SOCIAL MEDIA: Moody (FL AG) v. NetChoice, LLC; NetChoice, LLC v. Moody; NetChoice LLC v. Paxton

ARGUMENT DATES: Not yet set

The First Amendment protects social media platforms from handling user content.

THE CASE Separate Florida and Texas laws would require large businesses like X, and Facebook to host communications from third parties and prevent these businesses from blocking or removing posts based on users’ political views.

THE Arguments: These laws are intended to combat what some legislators call “censorship” of conservative messages, and prohibit politicians such as former President Trump from violating policies regarding offensive or “problematic content.” In the Florida case, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the tech industry, saying that as private companies, these companies “engaged constitutionally protected expression when they moderate and curate the content they disseminate through their platforms.”

IMPACT Trump, a coalition of sixteen states and other parties have filed separate amicus briefs in support of Florida. Biden’s administration opposes the state laws.

TRUMP CASE SPECIAL COUNSEL UNCONSTITUTIONAL: FORMER REAGAN AG

EXECUTIVE Power: Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. V. Raimondo

Date of the argument: January 17,

AT THE ISSUE: A potential far-reaching legal appeal in relation to another legal attempt by the Supreme Court to overturn the “Chevron deference”. This 1984 ruling stated that when federal laws were not clearly defined by Congress, federal agencies could interpret and enforce them with a wide range of discretion.

THE CASE The lead plaintiff Loper Bright Enterprises of New Jersey is represented by Cause of Action Institute and challenges a mandate from the federal government requiring Atlantic Herring Fishermen to pay over $700 per person, per day, for monitors who will ride on their boats to observe their activities, then report back to the government.

THE Arguments: The federal appeals court found that the National Marine Fisheries Service interpretation of federal fishery laws was “reasonable.” The fishermen claim that Congress never gave the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authority to require fishermen to pay for monitoring. They claim that the “Chevron precedent” forces courts to accept an agency’s interpretations of “ambiguous statutes”. The groups that support continued deference claim an adverse ruling will cause “chaos” in the federal government, and concentrate rulemaking power with non-elected judges who aren’t experts on specific policy issues.

THE EFFECT: Conservatives are still angry about the “Chevron’ decision. The high court has gradually reined in federal regulators. This includes a decision made by the court in June 2022 that limits EPA’s authority over greenhouse gas emission. The impact of overturning Chevron or further limiting the discretion of federal agencies would be enormous in key areas such as environment, workplace safety and consumer protections. The court can either address the “Chevron deference” in general or clarify specific areas of its use by federal agencies.

ABORTION MÉDICATION: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

ARGUMENT DATES: Not yet set

AT THE ISSUE: A lawsuit seeking to restrict the access to mifepristone – one of two drugs that are typically used to induce an abortion.

In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone to terminate a pregnancy. It is taken in conjunction with misoprostol. This pill combination can be used up until the 10th week.

SUPREME CREEK RULES OUT CHARGE FOR JAN. 6, WHICH COULD HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON TRUMP

ARGUMENTS Groups against the FDA claim it did not follow the proper procedures in determining the safety risks of the drug. A negative ruling could have a major impact on the testing and marketing of drugs, according to the Biden administration. The Supreme Court allowed the FDA the authority to regulate the drug until the merits of the case are decided. The judge could issue a nationwide injunction to prevent medication abortions in all states, even those where they are legal.

THE EFFECT: A high court decision can have a significant impact on 40 million women in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of abortions performed in the U.S. are done with mifepristone. In a year when the presidential election is taking place, Supreme Court involvement could have huge political implications.

GUN WRIGHTS: Garland v. Cargill

ARGUMENT DATES: Not yet set

AT THE ISSUE Whether a bump-stock device is a machine gun as defined by federal law because it was designed and intended to be used in converting a firearm into a weapon which fires “automatically multiple shots… with a single action of the trigger.”

The Case: In the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that killed 60 people and injured 500 others, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an interpretive ruling concluding bump stocks were machine guns. A bump stock allows semiautomatic weapons to simulate a fully automatic weapon by “cycling firing rate” to create the illusion of continuous automatic fire, according to ATF. The device replaces both the stock and the pistol grip of the gun and makes it buck backwards and forwards, “bumping” repeatedly the trigger against the shooter’s finger. Michael Cargill of Central Texas Gun Works sued the government for forcing him to give up several bump stocks.

ARGUMENTS Mark Chenoweth NCLA President and General Counsel said, “This is not about gun rights. It’s a matter of administrative power.”

“Congress did not give ATF the authority to rewrite federal laws pertaining to machineguns, nor could it.” The sole authority to write federal criminal laws rests with Congress. Both the Trump and Biden administrations made a grave constitutional error when they tried to ban bump stock without consulting Congress. “We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court can right this wrong, for Michael Cargill as well as all Americans,” Chenoweth stated.

THE INFLUENCE:Millions lawful gun owners owned bump stocks before the ATF rule. Cargill’s attorneys claim that ATF has acknowledged that law-abiding Americans would lose up to $100 million in property if the rule is implemented.

FREE SPEECH – National Rifle Association of America V. Vullo

ARGUMENT DATES: Not yet set

AT THE ISSUE: Whether a government regulatory agency threatening to take adverse regulatory action against regulated entities if they conduct business with an controversial speaker violates the First Amendment, allegedly due to the government’s hostility towards the speaker’s point of view.

The case: At the request of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s, Maria T. Vullo allegedly used the DFS regulatory powers to financially blacklist NRA, forcing banks and insurance companies to cut off ties with it. This was done, according to the NRA, to suppress the group’s speech.

THE ARGUMENTS The NRA claims that Vullo used “guidance” letters, backroom threats and more to get financial institutions to drop the Association. The NRA’s First Amendment claims were repeatedly dismissed, but after Vullo appealed to the Second Circuit, it struck down NRA’s claims in 2022. In an age of “enhanced social responsibility” the court ruled that it was reasonable to have New York’s financial regulator warn insurance companies and banks against providing services to pro-gun organizations based on a supposed “social backlash.”

THE INFLUENCE: The NRA has found a unlikely ally in the American Civil Liberties. They will support the gun rights group they ideologically disagree with, but agree the New York official violated its freedom of speech.

OBSTRUCTION: Fischer v. United States

ARGUMENT DATES: Not yet set

At issue: Is it correct that a court of appellate correctly determined the indictments of these three cases could include a charge of corruptly impeding, influencing, or obstructing an official proceedings, based upon each petitioner’s violent conduct of Jan. 6, 2021?

CASE: The Justice Department has charged over 300 people with obstructing a formal proceeding in relation to the riot of Jan. 6. Three defendants – Garret Miller from Dallas, Joseph Fischer from Boston and Edward Jacob Lang from New York’s Hudson Valley — are contesting that charge.

Click Here to Download the FOX News App

ARGUMENTS A lower court judge dismissed the obstruction charges against three defendants earlier, ruling that their behavior did not warrant this charge. The Biden DOJ, however, challenged this ruling, and Washington, D.C.’s appeals court agreed with the government prosecutors.

IMPACT This case’s outcome could have an impact on the criminal case of former President Trump, who is also facing similar obstruction charges.