(Adds arguments in abortion, Starbucks ( SBUX ) and homelessness cases)

April 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's current

term features major cases involving former President Donald

Trump's ballot disqualification, his claim of immunity from

prosecution, the abortion pill, gun rights, the power of federal

agencies, social media regulation and Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy

settlement.

Here is a look at some of the rulings already issued, cases

already argued and cases still to be argued this term.

TRUMP BALLOT DISQUALIFICATION

The court on March 4 handed Trump a major victory by barring

states from disqualifying candidates for federal office under a

constitutional provision involving insurrection and reversing

Colorado's exclusion of him from its ballot. The justices

unanimously overturned a decision by Colorado's top court to

kick the former president off the state's Republican primary

ballot after finding that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment

disqualified him from again holding public office. The Colorado

court had found that Trump took part in an insurrection for

inciting and supporting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S.

Capitol by his supporters.

TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM

The justices are set on April 25 to hear arguments in

Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to

overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. Lower

courts have rejected Trump's bid to be shielded from a federal

criminal case pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith, with the

consideration of his appeal by the justices delaying the start

of his trial. Trump has said he is immune because he was

president when he took the actions aimed at undoing the election

outcome. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

OBSTRUCTION CHARGE

The court on April 16 heard arguments over whether a man

named Joseph Fischer who was involved in the Capitol attack can

be charged with obstructing an official proceeding -

congressional certification of the 2020 election results. The

case has potential implications for Trump because he faces the

same charge in the special counsel's federal election subversion

case. The conservative justices during the argument signaled

skepticism toward the obstruction charge brought against

Fischer. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

ABORTION PILL ACCESS

The justices on March 26 heard arguments in a case involving

possible restrictions in access to the abortion pill. The

justices signaled they were unlikely to limit access, appearing

skeptical that the anti-abortion groups and doctors challenging

the drug, called mifepristone, have the needed legal standing to

bring the case. The Biden administration has appealed a lower

court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs that would limit how

the medication is prescribed and distributed. A ruling is

expected by the end of June.

IDAHO ABORTION LAW

The justices on April 24 heard arguments in a case pitting

Idaho's strict Republican-backed abortion ban against a 1986

federal law that ensures that patients can receive emergency

care. Biden's administration sued Idaho over the ban, which has

a narrow exception permitting an abortion to save the woman's

life. Idaho officials appealed a lower court's ruling that the

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) supersedes

the state's abortion law when the two conflict. The justices

appeared split. The conservative justices voiced concerns about

what protections federal law extends to "unborn children" and

whether Congress clearly indicated EMTALA can mandate abortion

in certain emergency cases. A ruling is expected by the end of

June.

BUMP STOCKS

The court on Feb. 28 heard arguments over the legality of a

ban imposed during Trump's presidency on "bump stocks" - devices

that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine

guns. The justices delved into the technical aspects of the

devices. The Biden administration has appealed a lower court's

ruling in favor of a Texas gun shop owner who challenged the ban

implemented after a 2017 mass shooting that killed 58 people in

Las Vegas. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION FREE SPEECH

The justices on March 18 heard arguments over the National

Rifle Association's claim that a New York state official

violated its free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's

First Amendment by coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with

it. The NRA urged the justices to revive its lawsuit accusing

the official, Maria Vullo, of unlawfully retaliating against it

following a 2018 mass shooting that killed 17 people at a

Parkland, Florida high school. The justices sought to

distinguish permissible government advocacy from unlawful

coercion. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUN CURBS

The court on Nov. 7 heard arguments over the legality of a

federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic

violence restraining orders to have guns. The justices appeared

inclined to uphold the law. Biden's administration appealed a

lower court's ruling that the law violated the Constitution's

Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." The challenge

was filed by a Texas man charged with illegal gun possession

while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after

assaulting his girlfriend. A ruling is expected by the end of

June.

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTORAL MAP

The justices on Oct. 11 heard arguments over the legality of

a Republican-drawn electoral map in South Carolina that was

blocked by a lower court for racial bias after 30,000 Black

residents were moved out of a U.S. House of Representatives

district. The conservative justices signaled sympathy toward

arguments made by Republican South Carolina officials. The lower

court in 2023 found that the map violated constitutional

provisions that guarantee equal protection under the law and bar

racial voting discrimination. But on March 28 it decided that

the map could be used in this year's elections because the

Supreme Court's ruling had not yet been issued and the election

calendar was fast approaching. A ruling by the Supreme Court is

expected by the end of June.

FISH CONSERVATION PROGRAM

The court heard arguments on Jan. 17 in a bid by fishing

companies to further limit the regulatory powers of federal

agencies in a dispute involving a government-run program to

monitor for overfishing of herring off New England's coast. The

justices appeared divided in the case. The companies have asked

the court to rein in or overturn a precedent established in 1984

that calls for judges to defer to federal agency interpretation

of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous, a doctrine called "Chevron

deference." A ruling is expected by the end of June.

CONSUMER WATCHDOG AGENCY'S FUNDING

The justices on Oct. 3 heard the payday lending industry's

challenge to the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's

funding structure. The justices appeared skeptical of the

challenge in a case that Biden's administration has said

imperils an agency set up to curb predatory lending after the

2008 global financial crisis. The administration appealed a

lower court's ruling that the funding mechanism violated the

constitutional provision giving lawmakers the power of the

purse. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

SEC IN-HOUSE ENFORCEMENT

The court on Nov. 29 heard arguments over the legality of

proceedings conducted by in-house judges at the Securities and

Exchange Commission to enforce investor-protection laws. The

conservative justices signaled some sympathy toward the

challenge brought by a Texas-based hedge fund manager who the

SEC fined and barred from the industry after determining he had

committed securities fraud. Biden's administration appealed a

lower court decision striking down the SEC enforcement

proceedings at issue as unconstitutional for violating the right

to a jury trial and infringing on presidential and congressional

powers. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

The justices on March 15 decided that government officials

can sometimes be sued under the First Amendment for blocking

critics on social media. In unanimous rulings in two cases from

California and Michigan, the justices set a new standard for

determining if public officials acted in a governmental capacity

when blocking critics on social media - a test to be applied in

lawsuits accusing them of First Amendment violations. First

Amendment free speech protections generally constrain government

actors, not private individuals.

SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT MODERATION

The court on Feb. 26 heard arguments over the legality of

Republican-backed laws in Texas and Florida that constrain the

ability of social media companies to curb content on their

platforms that these businesses deem objectionable. The

justices expressed reservations about the laws but signaled they

may not block them in their entirety. The two cases involve

technology industry challenges contending that the laws

restricting the content-moderation practices of large social

media platforms violate First Amendment protections. A decision

is expected by the end of June.

PURDUE PHARMA BANKRUPTCY SETTLEMENT

The court on Dec. 4 heard arguments over whether to approve

pain medication OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy

settlement. The justices voiced concern that the deal would

shield Purdue's wealthy Sackler family owners from lawsuits over

their role in a deadly opioid epidemic while also worrying that

scuttling it could harm victims. Purdue's owners under the

settlement would receive immunity in exchange for paying up to

$6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states,

hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have

sued the company over misleading marketing of OxyContin. A

ruling is expected by the end of June.

HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS

The court, delving into the U.S. homelessness crisis, on

April 22 heard arguments over the legality of local laws used

against people who camp on public streets and parks in a case

involving a southwest Oregon city's anti-vagrancy policy. The

city of Grants Pass appealed a lower court's ruling that found

that the ordinances - which make it illegal to camp on

sidewalks, streets, parks or other public places - violate the

Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition against "cruel and

unusual" punishment. A decision is expected by the end of June.

STARBUCKS UNIONIZATION

The court on April 23 heard arguments in a challenge by

Starbucks ( SBUX ) to a judicial order requiring the coffee

chain to rehire seven employees at a Memphis cafe who were fired

as they pursued unionization. The company appealed a lower

court's approval of an injunction sought by the U.S. National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordering reinstatement of the

workers. The case could make it harder to quickly halt labor

practices challenged as unfair under federal law while the NLRB

resolves complaints. A decision is expected by the end of June.

WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUITS

The court on April 17 made it easier to bring certain

workplace discrimination lawsuits in a ruling that gave a boost

to a St. Louis police officer who claimed she was transferred to

an undesirable new role because of her sex. At issue was whether

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars workplace

bias, requires employees to prove that discrimination caused

them significant harm such as a pay cut, demotion or job loss.

The unanimous ruling disapproved that approach.

TAX ON FOREIGN EARNINGS

The court on Dec. 5 heard arguments in a challenge to a tax

on Americans who have invested in certain foreign corporations.

The justices appeared skeptical of the bid by a retired couple

from Washington state who appealed after a lower court rejected

their challenge to the tax on foreign company earnings, even

though those profits have not been distributed to shareholders.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

'TRUMP TOO SMALL' TRADEMARK

The court on Nov. 1 heard arguments over whether a

California attorney's trademark for the phrase "Trump Too Small"

- a cheeky criticism of the former president - should have been

granted by the U.S. Trademark Office. The justices appeared

skeptical that the attorney can own a federal trademark covering

the phrase. The office, which denied the trademark, appealed a

lower court's decision that the attorney's First Amendment

protections for his criticism of public figures outweighed the

agency's concerns about Trump's rights. A ruling is expected by

the end of June.

(Compiled by Andrew Chung and John Kruzel; Editing by Will

Dunham)