The end is near for the 2013 Supreme Court term, but June is going to be a busy month for the justices. From First Amendment rights for employees to the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has yet to rule on some of the most influential cases heard in this term. For Supreme Court followers, these are the top ten cases that will be decided in June.

10. POM Wonderful v. Coca Cola

The drink giants argued before the high court over the right to call something pomegranate-blueberry juice if it has less than 1 percent of either fruit in it — or if that violates the Lanham Act. If the justices agree with the lower court ruling that POM couldn’t bring a false advertising claim in state court, it’ll bolster the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate food labeling. The court will

Credit: Flickr user zacklur
Credit: Flickr user zacklur

likely reverse the lower court ruling, however.

9. Argentina v. NML Capital

This will be the second ruling handed down to the Latin American country over its various debts with US-based companies. This case examined if a US court can force a sovereign nation to pay its debts or if countries are covered by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Argentina has avoided paying NML Capital and other bondholders $1.33 billion because it fears that it will destabilize their economy. In a separate case this term also involving Argentina, the Supreme Court decided against the country in the first case relating to international investment treaty arbitration.

8. McCullen v. Coakley

Anti-abortion activists are challenging a Massachusetts law that they say violates their freedom of speech and right to due process. Massachusetts allows for a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, which proponents of  the law say is for the safety of clinic workers and patients. Activists believe the state is infringing on their right to provide women seeking abortions with alternative information. The decision could ultimately strengthen or weaken Hill v. Colorado, which allows states to establish laws to limit protesters outside of health care facilities.

7. Susan B Anthony List v. Driehaus

Also on the First Amendment front is a challenge to Ohio’s law limiting false speech in political campaigns. Former Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus originally filed a complaint with the state election commission against the pro-life Susan B Anthony List over claims made during his reelection campaign that he voted for taxpayer-funded abortions. Even though Driehaus lost his campaign and dropped his complaint, the justices appeared wary of the Constitutional grounds of the state law during oral arguments.

6. Harris v. Quinn

Like McCullen v. Coakley, this case challenges the First and Fourteenth Amendment. It also has the ability to disrupt the influence of public unions. The plaintiff argues that Illinois law requiring public employees to pay for their share of union representation, even if they outright decline to be part of the union, violates the freedom of speech. This case could overturn or limit the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which lets public unions establish mandatory fees. Early indications show that the justices are split along party lines with conservative members being more open to the First Amendment argument.

5. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency already had one win this term when the Supreme Court affirmed the cross-state pollution rule, but will the agency’s authority succeed again? This consolidated case with six separate plaintiffs looks at if the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources (like factories) under the Clean Air Act. Because greenhouse gases are considered an air pollutant, the EPA is able to regulate emissions from trucks and cars under the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision. The justices will have to answer if that same logic applies to regulating factories or if the EPA must go to Congress to be given that authority.

4. Riley v. California; U.S. v. Wurie

The Fourth Amendment could be getting a twenty-first century update in this consolidated case deciding whether or not the police can search a person’s cell phone upon arrest. Because of the sheer amount of personal data smartphones can carry, allowing warrantless cell phone searches gives law enforcement a treasure trove of evidence. But the justices need to decide if that’s worth crossing into personal privacy. While there is the potential of establishing a modern precedent for a 222-year-old right, a ruling will not make much of a difference if the justices (who aren’t exactly the most tech-savvy people in Washington) don’t consider the future of cell phones, too.

3. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

It’s not the most headline-grabbing case to ever go before the Supreme Court, but it has the potential to undo hundreds of NLRB decisions. The justices will have to decide whether or not President Barack Obama overstepped his constitutional authority and the separation of powers by appointing NLRB members during a Senate recess. The justices seemed skeptical about Obama’s choices during oral arguments.

2. ABC v. Aereo

Will the Supreme Court effectively shut down the disruptive Internet startup that turns users’ laptops into a TV and DVR service because they never paid broadcasters for their content?  If the justices find that Aereo – with their thousands of tiny antennae – is exploiting a loophole in the copyright law and violated the rights of broadcasters, the tech industry worries that this might stunt innovation. Broadcasters, meanwhile, have been threatening to stop over-the-air content for Aero and similar companies cannot profit off their shows without getting paid.

From the oral arguments, there was no indication of how the justices were leaning, but it’s likely they’ll go for a more narrow ruling.

1. Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby; Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius

This is the Supreme Court case that caught the most attention in the mainstream media because it directly challenges the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate. A high court ruling will not only decide whether or not privately-held companies must include birth control under their insurance plans, but also if companies are afforded the same religious rights as people. A ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby will extend the rights of private companies under the First Amendment and negatively affect the ACA.