Supreme Court releases new orders ahead of opinions in controversial cases

The Supreme Court has released new orders this morning. They the justices. The justices are expected to release more decisions later in this week, including several controversial ones that could have major implications for former President Donald Trump. Let's bring in CBS News legal contributor and professor at Loyola Law School, Jessica Levinson. So, Jessica, First off, explain for us what exactly are Supreme Court orders and how do they set the stage for decisions later this week? That's a great question. So the orders that come out as you know, not always on the same days as the opinion, they come out at 9:30 for you, 630 for me. And it's really just that it says we will take this case. We won't take that case or hear some more information about a case that we already took. We will allow a different person to file an amicus brief or we will allow more time. So they really are, as they say, orders. They don't express the court's opinion, but they're hugely important, mainly for the first thing I said, which is it tells us what the next term will look like. Which cases is the court going to take up? This morning I was looking for a case dealing with transgender rights, another dealing with Second Amendment issues. Those were not granted. And so the orders in part that moment where we're waiting to see which cases does the court take, we can look to see which cases they reviewed the last week during their conference and try and figure out what's most likely to be granted or denied. And so that's what the orders are. It's not about the cases that the court has already heard and are there for granting an opinion on. So then, do any of the orders released this morning stand out to you? Is noteworthy. Not for the big cases. There's one order dealing with a Fair Labor Standards Act and essentially how hard or difficult it is to show that you are entitled to an exemption under that act. That could be a big employment case coming up next term. But in terms of the really big blockbuster cases, nothing new this morning. That will come Thursday and then maybe again later this week. But certainly they are going to have to add opinion days because there are, I think depending on how you count, 25 more opinions left this term. So looking ahead to some expected opinions later this week, some decisions, there's still a number of these controversial cases on the docket, including one about the January 6th attack on the Capitol. On Sunday, Senator and potential Trump vice presidential pick Tim Scott spoke about the attack. I want to play a bit of that. Anyone who attacks an officer, whether on the Capitol grounds or any place else in the in the country should serve time. The question is for those nonviolent folks who sat outside who actually simply protested or came into the Capitol because the doors were open, who created no, no crime, no challenges, Those folks today sit in crime, in pretrial. That's a devastation. So is this a fair distinction of the case that's been laid out for the Supreme Court? And how does all this public discussion from politicians and others ahead of the decision set the stage for the justices ruling? Well, I think that public discussion really doesn't and shouldn't affect it in the sense that a political comment by a politician should not influence a federal judge as to whether or not they grant a case and how they rule on a case. I would argue that there are actually 2 January 6th cases pending before the court. One deals with former President Trump and whether or not presidents are entitled to some level of immunity from criminal prosecution, and that case came out of the charges that were lodged against Trump based on his involvement in January 6th. The other January 6th case deals with a federal obstruction statute and whether or not that is a good fit for the events of January 6th. Meaning, is that federal obstruction statute really just about evidence tampering, or is it also about people who tried to prevent the congressional proceedings on that day from continuing? And of course, what was happening that day was the counting of Electoral College votes. So I would say there are two big January 6 cases we're waiting on. To Senator Scott's point, I do think that there is a distinction based on different activities require different types of laws that you might be charged under, or maybe you should be charged under no law at all. But I've seen that from the Department of Justice. I have seen them treat different people and different activities cities differently as they see fed. All right, Jessica, thank you.