The Supreme Court is preparing for a furious round of decisions by the end of June

The Supreme Court is preparing for a furious round of decisions in the last days of June.

The Supreme Court is set to make major decisions this week on student debt relief, affirmative action, and federal election laws as it enters the final week of its summer session with ten pending cases.

The Court did not indicate that it would break its rules for terminating decisions by the end of June, and the next installment is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

In addition to decisions, the Court also forms its agenda for the coming period. On Monday, the justices may announce whether to take over several high-profile cases, including those on weapons, racial discrimination, and qualified immunity.

Here are the remaining cases as the Supreme Court concludes its annual term:

Student debt relief

President Biden's plan to forgive student debt for more than 40 million borrowers will soon be green-lighted or blocked, depending on how the justices rule.

The Biden plan would forgive up to $10,000 to borrowers who meet income requirements and up to $20,000 to Pell Grant recipients.

But the debt relief remains suspended until the Supreme Court decides on two cases challenging the plan.

If either succeeds, debt relief will be blocked.

During oral arguments, the conservative majority questioned the administration's authority to cancel debts expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

But before they can strike the plan as illegal, the judges must first decide whether any competitors have legal status.

The six GOP-led states and two individual borrowers challenging the plan have emboldened different arguments.

Missouri's argument received the most attention, and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's three liberals in questioning the state's theory during the oral argument.

The two cases are Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.

When the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in college admissions in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in the majority opinion, made a tentative prediction:

"The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will not be necessary to promote the interest for which it was approved today," she wrote.

The justices have been weighing whether to turn on Grutter — and decades of affirmative action programs in higher education side by side — in challenges to the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

During the oral discussion, the majority seemed skeptical of supporting race-informed college admissions.

Judges tend to write up to one majority opinion monthly for a debate session.

Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh had not yet issued majority opinions on any case discussed in November, when affirmative action appeals were heard, implying that one is the likely author.

The cases are Fair Admissions Students v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Fair Admissions Students v. University of North Carolina.

Same-sex wedding sites

Web designer Laurie Smith, an evangelical Christian, is challenging Colorado's public residence law on free speech grounds.

Like many other states, Colorado law prohibits businesses serving the public from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

Smith wants to expand her business to create wedding websites. But Colorado law requires her to make same-sex wedding websites if she wants to do so for heterosexual marriages, and Smith is staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage.

Judges are now appointed to decide whether public residence laws, as applied to Smith and other entertainers, violate the First Amendment by forcing them to speak.

The conservative majority indicated support for Smith during the oral debate.

Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch are likely authors because they are the two remaining justices who did not issue majority opinions in a case argued in December.

The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

The theory of an "independent legislative state."

The Court is considering a major electoral struggle to decide who has the final say in setting the rules for the federal election.

Republican North Carolina lawmakers have appealed a state court ruling that wiped out their congressional map, and the justices have promoted a sweeping argument known as the "independent state legislature" theory.

This theory asserts that state legislatures have exclusive authority to set the rules for federal elections under the Constitution.

Its adoption would restore the ability of state courts and state constitutions to block designs of congressional maps of legislatures and other systems surrounding federal elections.

When the justices heard the case, Republicans regained control of the North Carolina Supreme Court and overturned the key decision that hit the state's congressional map.

The Supreme Court has been paying close attention to whether it still has jurisdiction in the case, which is likely given the high-stakes dispute.

Based on the decisions issued so far, either Roberts or Gorsuch is the likely majority opinion author.

The Court has four other remaining cases.

In Groff v. DeJoy, the justices will decide whether the US Postal Service should accommodate postal worker Gerald Groff's request not to work on Sundays for religious reasons. The decision could change the standard for companies providing Religious accommodations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Counterman v. Colorado, the Court grapples with a man's appeal of a stalking conviction on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court has long identified "real threats" as an exception to free speech protections and will make the case when it applies: when a reasonable person would consider a statement a threat of violence or only when the speaker intended it to be threatened.

In a case closely watched by commercial interests, the justices in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company are considering a constitutional challenge to a Pennsylvania law that requires companies doing business there to agree that state courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits against the company.

In Arbitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc. The judges are considering whether federal law can be used to punish trademark infringement if the infringement occurs overseas.