Thank you for joining our live coverage of today's Supreme Court decisions.

You can read more on the court's decision on January 6 charges here.

There is still one decision day left.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at the end of a very busy session in court that the last day of the term is Monday.

That means we have to wait a few days more for the biggest decision this year - whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for acts he carried out while president.

On this page today were Lisa Lambert, Graeme Baker, Jessica Murphy, Tiffany Wertheimer, Max Matza, Mike Wendling, Christal Hayes, Matt Murphy, Christal Hayes, Samantha Granville and Kayla Epstein.

Coming back now to the court's obstruction charges decision, the Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith has declined to comment on what the court's Fischer ruling means for his prosecutions against Donald Trump.

Smith has charged Trump with allegedly conspiring to defraud the US and allegedly conspiring against the rights of citizens, so the outcome of the case will not halt the entire federal case against the former president.

Trump is fighting those charges, and in a separate Supreme Court case yet to be decided has argued he should not be prosecuted for acts he carried out while in office.

Samantha Granville
Reporting from Los Angeles

The Supreme Court's Grants Pass decision does not end homelessness. It doesn't give a mandate on how cities and governments should handle the growing crisis - but it does now allow cities to take more severe measures without the fear of legal recourse.

“Giving cities the full breadth of tools so that they can address this problem and all its complexities make sense,” says Elizabeth Funk, founder of DignityMoves, a nonprofit dedicated to ending unsheltered homelessness.

“But a city who decides that they're going to put someone in jail because they are sleeping on the streets because they don't have another place to go? It's pretty nonsensical.”

The first problem with putting homeless people in jail is that it is extremely expensive, and when they get out, the person is still homeless and now even less apt to finding employment with a criminal record.

“We're stacking the cards against them, if we criminalise them or if we fine them or put them in jail, and give them a record,” says Ms Funk.

“We need to be thinking about how to get this problem solved. It's not going to be fining people for doing something they can't avoid. It's helping them.”

Research from Housing Matters, an Urban Institute initiative, shows that it costs taxpayers $31,065 a year to criminalise a single person suffering from homelessness, opposed to the yearly cost for providing supportive housing, at $10,051.

Criminalising homelessness and pushing homeless people to other parts of an area will only make encampments grow.

These camps are usually set up in areas that are obscured by trees and brushes, and adding dry fuels like camp stoves could create an environmental crisis with more wildfires.

Christal Hayes
Reporting from Los Angeles

Image source, Getty Images

We're bringing you some analysis and reaction now from an earlier Friday decision, where the court ruled an Oregon town is not violating the Constitution by punishing homeless people for outdoors.

The high court's ruling allowing cities and communities to fine the homeless came as the US tracked the highest numbers of homeless people since 2007 - when the US Department of Housing and Urban Development started tracking such data.

There were 653,104 homeless people counted as part of the agency's yearly homeless assessment last year. That's nearly an 11% increase from the 582,462 homeless that were tracked in the 2022 report.

Some of the highest concentrations of homeless are on the West Coast. California, with its moderate temperatures, accounts for nearly half of all homeless people who live outside and has a total of 123,423 homeless, according to the report.

Cities across the country have been wrestling with how to combat the growing crisis. The issue has been at the heart of recent election cycles in West Coast cities, including Los Angeles, where officials have poured record amounts of money into creating shelters and affordable housing while homelessness has still increased.

Image source, EPA/EFE

The US Supreme Court has ruled that federal prosecutors overreached in using an obstruction law to charge dozens of January 6 rioters, in an opinion that could affect the prosecution of Donald Trump.

More than 350 people have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

The Supreme Court has said the use of that law, which was created in the wake of the Enron scandal in 2002 to prevent corporate malfeasance during trials, should only be used if the accused allegedly hurt or destroyed documents or records in the proceeding.

It sent the case back to a lower court to decide if this limited reading applies. It probably will not in many of the instances.

The top court's decision could upend all of those charges and potentially delay the start of Trump's trial.

Prosecutors argued the law applied to 6 January cases because rioters were attempting to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

Earlier on Friday, the court also issued two other major rulings.

In a major win for conservatives, the court made the decision to throw out the "Chevron deference" - a 40-year legal precedent regarding how the government functions.

The move strips federal agencies power to interpret vague laws, and instead gives that power to the courts.

It severely limits how government regulators operate, and will have major implications for the executive branch's ability to conduct oversight.

The court also issued a decision regarding camping laws in Grants Pass, Oregon - ruling that the city did in fact have the right to ban camping for people sleeping rough.

The case is seen as the most important decision made by the court on the issue of homelessness since the 1980s.

Image source, Getty Images

US Attorney General Merrick Garland, who leads the Department of Justice, has just released a statement criticising the court's Fischer v United States obstruction decision.

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government - the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next," his statement begins.

"I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences."

The nation's top law enforcement officer notes that the "vast majority" of the 1,400 people charged in the riot will not be affected by the court's decision.

Garland also says that "there are no cases" in which a defendant has been charged "only with the offense at issue" in the case the court just ruled on.

"For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling," he says.

Kayla Epstein
Reporting from the debate

The Supreme Court's ruling in Fischer v United States has everyone asking one question: what's next for the people charged or convicted under the obstruction of an official proceeding charge for the January 6 riot?

"I believe that for those already convicted, they can challenge the sentence, provided there’s not another charge to support the sentence," Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

The Department of Justice could try to charge the petitioner in this case, Joseph Fisher, under a new legal theory, Huq said.

As for the biggest question of all - how this impacts Trump - Huq believes this ruling would not be a game changer.

"For Trump, I think there will be litigation," Huq said. "But the charges against him involve falsifying or altering 'records, documents, or objects'. So I think it likely doesn’t undermine those charges."

Image source, Getty Images

More than 1,400 people have been charged with crimes related to the 6 January riot, and in most cases the charges go beyond obstruction.

According to the justice department, more than 500 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, including more than 130 who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to a police officer.

And more than 1,300 people have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.

More than 100 of those have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Mike Wendling
BBC News

Image source, Getty Images

For the time being, further delays.

The Supreme Court kicked the fight over obstruction of an official proceeding charges back down to the lower courts.

But that's not all that Trump is accused of.

The special prosecutor in charge of the case, Jack Smith, has already filed other counts against the former president - for conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring against the rights of citizens.

Those cases could still go ahead. But the clock is ticking. And if Donald Trump is elected in November, he would presumably halt the whole process.

Image source, Getty Images

In the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that obstruction under the legislation has a much more narrow definition than the one used by prosecutors.

Blending two sections of the legislation, Roberts says that to obstruct a federal proceeding a defendant must have sought to destroy "documents" or "objects intended for use" in that proceeding.

The case is being sent back to a lower court to decide if this narrow definition applies. That would take evidence of Fischer - and many other of those charged - attempting to destroy a document.

Image source, Pool/Getty Images

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issues an impassioned dissent against her usual allies on the court's conservative wing.

She accuses the majority of adopting a narrow approach to the use of a federal obstruction law used to prosecute 6 January rioters by "snipping words from one subsection" of the legislation and "grafting them onto another".

This, Barrett says, "violates our normal interpretive principles".

Mike Wendling
BBC News

Image source, Getty Images

The US Supreme Court has struck down the use of a federal obstruction law used to prosecute Donald Trump and hundreds of other people charged over the 6 January Capitol riot of 2021.

More than 350 people have been charged with obstructing Congress’s business under a law that was passed in 2002, after the Enron scandal, to stop corporate misconduct.

The Supreme Court rejected prosecutors' argument that the law applied because Capitol rioters were attempting to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has also indicted Trump for allegedly conspiring to defraud the US and allegedly conspiring against the right of citizens - so this will not throw out the entire federal case against the former president.

Trump is fighting those charges, and in a separate Supreme Court case has argued he should not be prosecuted for acts he carried out while in office.

In general, obstruction charges represent just a fraction of those lodged against defendants involved in the riot, and many face multiple charges.

The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a man who attended Trump’s rally in Washington on 6 January 2021, then briefly went inside the Capitol.

He was seen arguing with police on video before leaving the building.

Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania, still faces trial on a number of other charges including civil disorder, disorderly conduct and assaulting, resisting or impeding a police officer.

Image source, Getty Images

In an interesting move, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has joined the liberal wing of the court in opposing the 6-3 majority's decision in Fischer.

Justice Barrett sided with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. She wrote the dissent for the trio.

Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson - the court's newest member who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022 - sided with the conservative majority.

Image source, DOJ

The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a man who attended Trump’s rally in Washington on 6 January 2021, then briefly went inside the Capitol. He was seen arguing with police on video before leaving the building. Obstruction charges represent just a fraction of those lodged against people who stormed the Capitol.

Even if the court had said the law could not be used, the federal government still could have gone ahead with most of the riot cases.

Special Counsel Jack Smith also indicted Trump for allegedly conspiring to defraud the US and allegedly conspiring against the right of citizens, for example.

Trump is fighting those charges, and in a separate Supreme Court case has argued he should not be prosecuted for acts he carried out while in office.Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania, also faces trial on a number of other charges including civil disorder, disorderly conduct and assaulting, resisting or impeding a police officer.

Image source, DOJ

Image source, Getty Images

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a specific law about obstructing an official proceeding cannot be used to prosecute hundreds of people involved in the Capitol riot of January 2021, including former president Donald Trump, unless those people are accused of hurting or destroying documents and records.

We are reading through the lengthy documents now and will bring you more details very soon. Stick with us.

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

For four decades, conservatives have been working to overturn the precedent set in the landmark Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.

By giving executive agencies more freedom to implement laws, in the conservative view, it vastly expanded the power of the federal bureaucracy.

In areas like workplace safety, financial markets and the environment, courts – and, by extension, businesses contemplating legal challenges to regulations - had to yield to agency interpretation of laws.

The Supreme Court has been paring back agency power in recent years, noting that there are “major questions” of policy that Congress must explicitly detail in order for agencies to take action on them.

“Chevron Deference” as a legal principle, however, had endured, setting guidelines for lower courts to follow.

On Friday, this Supreme Court delivered the final blow, making this just the latest example of a longstanding precedent upended by the chamber’s solid conservative majority.

Lisa Lambert
Live reporter

While “Chevron deference” may sound like a chess strategy, it actually refers to a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.

The court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. The court has just reversed this.

The idea was that if Congress passes a law where something is unclear - or there is a “gap” - it is up to an agency to fill in that gap. In practice, that gave arms of the federal government like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the freedom to create and implement rules without fear of years-long court fights.

Then, in 2020, herring fishermen entered the chat. That year the Trump administration began requiring that they cover the costs of taking federal monitors on fishing trips.

The fishing vessels did not have a choice - it was illegal to fish without federal monitors on board to check on the Atlantic fishery, an area that extends from Maine to North Carolina.

But they hadn’t had to pay for the monitors before. Commercial fishing companies sued in two separate cases.

And in one, a federal judge ruled the National Marine Fisheries Service could legally impose the costs under the Chevron deference.

The court has thrown out a 40-year legal precedent known as the “Chevron deference.”

This is a major 6-3 decision on how the federal government functions, affecting big agencies like the EPA. We will have more on this for you shortly.

Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for the Oregon city of Grants Pass, has just sent a statement to BBC News in which she says the court "delivered urgent relief to the many communities that have struggled to address the growing problem of dangerous encampments".

"The Court has now restored the ability of cities on the frontlines of this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean," she said.

"Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

Sam Granville
Reporting from Los Angeles

Image source, Reuters

Grants Pass's population has doubled to 40,000 in the last 20 years, but its supply of affordable or public housing has not.

Soaring housing costs led to a sizeable number of people losing their homes.

Town officials responded by passing laws that fined people for sleeping or camping in public. Over time, those fines stacked up, reaching thousands of dollars for some.

Unable to pay for multiple citations, three homeless people sued the city.

Their lawsuit reached the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2022 that the restrictions in Grants Pass were so tight that they amounted to an effective ban on being homeless within city limits.

The court had determined four years earlier in a similar case in Idaho that the constitution “bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to".

Meanwhile, the crisis has continued to worsen.

Jennifer Friedenbach, of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco, said that money and resources should "go towards getting folks off the streets".

“What we know is that arresting and fining people for being homeless doesn't work," she said. "It doesn't get anybody off the streets. It wastes municipal resources, and it exacerbates homelessness."