Five Impending Supreme Court Rulings That Could Change Your Life

The Supreme Court's term is soon coming to an end, with rulings expected in cases that could change the lives of millions of Americans.

On Friday, the court handed President Joe Biden a win in United States v. Texas, rejecting a Republican-led challenge to a Biden administration policy that prioritizes the deportation of immigrants who are deemed to pose the greatest risk to public safety.

But rulings on cases involving affirmative action, student debt forgiveness, religion, free speech, LGBTQ+ rights and elections are still to come in a term with no shortage of high-stakes decisions that could divide the court's six conservative and three liberal justices.

There is currently one date designated on the court's calendar where opinions are to be issued: Tuesday, June 27. All opinions are typically handed down by the last day of the court's term in late June or early July, but there are no rules about when decisions must be released with the exception of the end-of-term deadline.

Here are five important decisions that are still to come:

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College

These cases involve the consideration of race as a factor in admissions by college and universities, often known as affirmative action. The lawsuits filed by a conservative group allege that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina discriminate against Asian American applicants.

Supporters of affirmative action are hoping the court leaves things as they are, but many observers believe the justices will issue a sweeping decision that removes race from the admissions process entirely.

An end to affirmative action would send shockwaves through the American higher education system and force many schools to find other ways to promote diversity. Such a ruling could also affect government programs, scholarships and financial aid and hiring practices at private companies.

Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown

These two cases, one brought by six Republican-led states and the other by two students, challenge President Joe Biden's student debt-relief plan.

Biden's plan would wipe away up to $10,000 in federal student loan debt for borrowers if they make less than $125,000 a year individually or $250,000 as a family. Recipients of a Pell Grant government subsidy would get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

The Biden administration says the plan would provide relief for up to 43 million borrowers and cancel the full balance of roughly 20 million of that number.

Several borrowers have told Newsweek how crushing the weight of their ballooning student debt has been, and how Biden's plan would change their lives if enacted. But opponents have said the plan is a violation of Biden's executive authority and pointed to its $430 billion price tag.

Groff v. DeJoy

This case was brought by Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs and then sued the U.S. Postal Service for religious discrimination.

At the center of it is the court's interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to accommodate employees' religious practices unless doing so would be an "undue hardship" for the business. A 1977 ruling said employers can deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose more than a minimal, or "de minimis" cost on the business.

Groff wants the 1977 ruling overturned and for the court to say that employers must show "significant difficulty or expense" if they want to reject a religious accommodation.

The court has proved sympathetic to religious plaintiffs in recent years, and the verdict could clarify the standard employers need to meet to deny religious accommodations, possibly strengthening protection for all religious workers.

303 Creative v. Elenis

The case of a Colorado web designer who says her religious beliefs prevent her from offering wedding website designs to gay couples is the latest clash involving religion and LGBTQ+ rights before the court.

Lorie Smith argued that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other factors, violates her free speech and religious rights. The Supreme Court took up the case only as a free-speech issue.

"Everyone should be free to choose the content of their speech," she told Newsweek last year. "I have not been able to create and design for weddings because the state of Colorado has been clear that I must create content against who I am."

Moore v. Harper

A ruling in Moore v. Harper could have far-reaching consequences, including significantly increasing the power of state lawmakers over elections for Congress and the presidency.

North Carolina Republicans challenged a state court ruling striking down the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly that seemingly would have benefited GOP candidates in 10 of the state's 14 congressional districts.

It comes as state courts have become increasingly involved in redistricting, after a 2019 Supreme Court decision said federal courts could no longer handle claims of illegal partisan gerrymandering.

Update 6/27/23, 4:30 a.m. ET: This article and its headline have been updated to reflect that a decision has been handed down in United States v. Texas.