These are the remaining 4 Supreme Court cases for this hectic mandate: "Remain in Mexico" is one

Protests grow against the Supreme Court in the US 3:33

(CNN) --

Although the Supreme Court last week issued the two most important opinions of the current legislature, changing nearly 50-year precedent on abortion and expanding gun rights for the first time in a decade, this legislature so successful is not over.

There are still four lawsuits to be decided, and the resolutions will be announced on Wednesday morning.

A look at what's left:

Immigration: "Remain in Mexico"

The justices are considering whether the Biden administration can end a Trump-era border policy known as "Remain in Mexico."

Lower courts have so far blocked Biden from ending the policy.

Under the unprecedented program launched in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security can send certain non-Mexican citizens who entered the United States back to Mexico, rather than detain or release them in the United States, while they await their immigration proceedings.

• Supreme Court examines Biden's power to set US immigration policy to end "Remain in Mexico" policy

Critics call this policy inhumane, saying it exposes asylum seekers with credible claims to dangerous and miserable conditions.

The case raises questions not only about immigration law, but also about the control of a president's politics and his diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.

advertising

Climate Change: EPA's Authority to Regulate Emissions from Power Plants

Judges will decide a case over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, in a dispute that could hurt the Biden administration's attempts to reduce the emissions.

It comes at a time when scientists are warning about the accelerating rate of global warming.

The court's decision to intervene in the case worried environmentalists because there is no regulation in force.

• There is a 50/50 chance that the world will pass the critical global warming threshold in the next five years

A lower court struck down a Trump-era rule in 2021, and the Biden administration's EPA is currently working on a new rule.

But the fact that there have been enough votes to address the issue now has struck some as an aggressive concession, indicating that the court wants to limit the scope of EPA's authority even before there is a new law in the books. books.

The War Powers of Congress: Job Protection for Veterans

In another dispute, the court could weaken employment protections for veterans.

Le Roy Torres, a veteran and former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told the state agency that he could no longer work as a state trooper and sought comparable work to accommodate his service-connected disability.

When he was denied the job, he sued under a federal law designed to protect the reemployment rights of returning veterans.

But Texas countered that states are immune from these kinds of lawsuits brought under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, passed under the war powers authority of Congress.

Now, the court will face the authority of Congress to provide the national defense with the ability of a state to decide when it is sued.

The ruling could affect thousands of active duty and reserve service members across the country who work for state agencies.

• ANALYSIS |

  A historically unpopular Supreme Court made a historically unpopular decision

Native American lands

Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Native American man, was convicted of child neglect in a case involving his stepdaughter, who is a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

His conviction was overturned after a state appellate court held that because the crime occurred in native territory, the state lacked jurisdiction.

Now the court will decide whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-natives who commit crimes against natives within its territory.

In 2020, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by liberals on the court, the majority held that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute a Native American who had committed a crime on Native land.

Supreme Court