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

We are still waiting for significant rulings from the court, including one on presidential immunity and January 6 cases.

The top court is scheduled to release decisions tomorrow, which we will again be covering live.

And just earlier today, the court's website indicated justices will release opinions next Monday as well.

Justices are due to go on summer recess soon.

Today's coverage was edited by Jessica Murphy, Lisa Lambert and Graeme Baker. The writers were Natalie Sherman, Holly Honderich and Max Matza,

The Supreme Court has just added Monday as an opinion day.

That means it could announce the biggest decision of the term, whether President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution, tomorrow or the first day of July, breaking with court tradition.

Once that is announced, we'll have an idea of whether the federal case against Trump related to the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol can move forward.

We are also still awaiting a decision on another case involving Jan 6 rioters, which could affect the Republican presidential candidate.

Traditionally the court's term ends in June. But there are no hard and fast rules or deadlines. The national Independence Day holiday falls on Thursday next week, though, and we don't expect any opinions released that day or the one after.

One thing that is certain is that when the court announces whether Trump can be tried, we'll be here to bring you the news.

Holly Honderich

President Joe Biden released a statement following the court's Idaho abortion decision, saying that "no woman should be denied care, made to wait until she’s near death, or forced to flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs".

"This should never happen in America," he said.

And Biden, up for re-election in November, repeated a now-familiar election pitch as well.

While restrictions to abortion care was part of the Republican party's "extreme and dangerous agenda", he wrote, he and Vice-President Kamala Harris would fight to restore access if re-elected.

"The stakes could not be higher," he said.

Image source, EPA-EFE

Natalie Sherman
New York business reporter

Image source, Boston Herald via Getty Images

The court's decision to send back a deal between Purdue and those suing the drug company to lower courts has upended a settlement deal that was agreed to by a majority of creditors.

Some of those creditors, including Cheryl Juaire, the mother of two sons who died of opioid overdoses, say that the decision means that lawyers for both sides will have to return to negotiations.

"It's going to be a complete nightmare," said Juaire, who helped negotiate the deal as a member of the creditors' committee.

Juaire said when she became involved with the case she hoped to put the Sacklers in jail. She was ultimately persuaded that it was more important to secure money to address the problem.

Members of the Sackler family have denied wrongdoing buthave expressed regret that OxyContin contributed to the opioid crisis.

They said last year the settlement would help communities in need.

Juaire said victory was "bittersweet".

"There's no win-win here," she said.

"At the end of the day, the Sacklers are going to have to stand before their ultimate judge and that's in heaven," she added.

"That's the only thing I can lean on."

We are starting to get reaction to the major decisions that were handed down today.

A statement from Purdue provided to BBC News says that the drug company will seek to forge a new agreement to replace the one that was cancelled by today's court ruling.

"Today’s ruling is heart-crushing because it invalidates a settlement supported by nearly all of our creditors – including states, local governments, personal injury victims, schools, and hospitals – that would have delivered billions of dollars for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement, and overdose rescue and addiction treatment medicines," the company said.

Purdue says that it "will immediately reach back out to the same creditors who have already proven they can unite to forge a settlement".

The statement adds that the ruling "does not affect Purdue’s operational stability" and that the company will "continue to operate without interruption in the ordinary course of business".

Holly Honderich

While the court's abortion ruling will - for now - allow emergency abortions in Idaho, the justices did not substantively weigh in on the issue at hand: whether a federal law ensuring emergency care must cover abortion.

That sidestep fueled a dissent from one of the three liberal justices, the court's newest member Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a part assent, part dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the court has "shirked its duty to resolve a pressing legal issue".

"The conflict between state and federal law still exists - in real life", she said, referring to Idaho's near-total abortion ban. "There is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now."

Holly Honderich

Image source, CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The Supreme Court has ruled that Idaho's near-total abortion ban, which allows exceptions for the life - but not the health - of the mother, may not be enforced in medical emergencies.

The case centered on a federal law - called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA - which requires hospitals to provide stabilising treatment to any patient who arrives with an "emergency medical condition".

The question before the court was whether EMTALA covered emergency abortions, even in states like Idaho where the procedure is banned. The Biden administration said yes, and sued Idaho.

But in their decision today, the justices did not actually answer this question. Instead, the unsigned opinion dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

This means that while abortion rights advocates can celebrate a win today, the door is still open for further challenges to EMTALA.

Natalie Sherman
New York business reporter

Image source, Lightrocket via Getty Images

One of the main rulings released today is the Purdue decision, which has thrown into question a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma.

That deal would have shielded members of the Sackler family from future lawsuits over their role in fuelling the opioid crisis.

It is a victory for the US government, which had challenged the deal, arguing that releasing the Sacklers was a misuse of the system.

But it raises significant questions about the future of the settlement deal, which had won significant, if mixed, support from many who sued the company and saw it as the only practical way to reach the family's billions for drug treatment and other uses.

In the 5-4 opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the ruling was a narrow one and referred the case back to lower courts.

The kind of shield granted to the Sacklers has been a critical feature of other high-profile settlements, including those involving Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church.

But courts have been divided as to whether such "releases" from liability for third parties like the Sacklers, who did not themselves declare bankruptcy, are actually permitted.

In asking the Supreme Court to take up the issue, lawyers for the US government said letting it stand "would leave in place a roadmap for wealthy corporations and individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system" and escape accountability.

We have gotten the final opinion of the day, which we were expecting - the Idaho emergency abortion case. The justices ruled that Idaho cannot deny emergency abortions to women whose health is in danger.

Natalie Sherman
New York business reporter

Image source, Getty Images

Going back to the earlier Purdue decision, it will upend a deal in which the Sackler family had agreed to pay $6bn (£4.7bn) toward a wider settlement in exchange for sweeping protections from future civil claims.

The settlement had won significant, if mixed, support from many of those who had sued the company and saw it as the only practical way to reach the family's billions for drug treatment and other uses.

But courts have been divided as to whether such "releases" from liability for third parties like the Sacklers, who did not themselves declare bankruptcy, are actually permitted - especially in a case like Purdue, which faced tens of trillions worth in claims, the vast majority of which will go unpaid.

The kind of shield granted to the Sacklers has also been a critical feature of other high-profile settlements, including those involving Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church.

In asking the Supreme Court to take up the issue, lawyers for the US government said letting it stand "would leave in place a roadmap for wealthy corporations and individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system" and escape accountability.

The Supreme Court has ruled that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for someone for securities fraud, that person is entitled to a jury trial under the seventh amendment. The decision will limit some of the power of the top securities regulator in the country.

The vote was 6-3, with the three liberal justices dissenting.

The Supreme Court may have accidentally given us a clue as to one of today's possible rulings.

Yesterday afternoon, a document posted on the court's website seemed to reveal major opinion on abortion rights, before that document was quickly taken down.

According to the document, the justices will rule that Idaho cannot deny emergency abortions to women whose health is in danger.

The court said the opinion, initially obtained by Bloomberg, was "inadvertently and briefly" published, and that its final decision had "not been released" but would be presented in due course.

Read more about the federal law driving this abortion case.

Supreme Court has said that the part of the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement that shielded the powerful Sackler family from future lawsuits is not covered by the bankruptcy code. The vote was again 5-4.

Image source, Getty Images

At issue was how to handle cross-state air pollution, which is created in one state and then drifts to another. Under the Clean Air Act, upwind states have to come up with plans to make sure that their smog does not hurt the air quality in downwind states.

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected the plans from 21 states and then put out its own“Good Neighbor Plan” for them and two other states to follow. Part of the plan requires large industries in the states(like power plants and steel mills) to cut the nitrogen oxides they put into the air.

States and industry groups launched legal challenges, saying the plan was burdensome and could hurt electricity generation and natural gas supplies. They also said it impeded state sovereignty.

At the Supreme Court the states made an“all or nothing” type argument, as well. The cases are in different courts, and some judges have put the plan on hold for a dozen states. The remaining ones say they too should not have to comply.

Those backing the EPA plan say that smog - ground-level ozone - can cause health problems like asthma and that pollution does not stop at state borders.

The court has put an EPA plan on smog on hold. Ohio had challenged the "good neighbor plan" trying to keep smog from traveling from one state to another. The ruling was 5-4.

Hello, and welcome to our Supreme Court live coverage.

We’re reaching the end of the court’s traditional June decision-dropping window, so rulings on several important cases could come any day now.

We’re still waiting on opinions about whether former President Donald Trump is subject to prosecution for actions he took while in the White House, and whether defendants charged for the 6 January, 2021 Capitol riot - including Trump - can be tried for obstructing an official proceeding.

You can read the decisions the court has already issued this term here, external.

There are also several other rulings that could come today, including on environment policy and how the federal government implements policy changes.

Stick with us as with bring it all to you live.