After half a century, Americans' constitutional right to get an abortion has been overturned by the Supreme Court.
But while the reversal of Roe v Wade has dominated headlines and sparked protests across the nation, it isn't the only recent ruling to come from the highest court in America.
From expanding gun laws to backing a high school football coach's freedom of speech, here are the other ways in which the US Supreme Court has reshaped America's future.
You can use these links to jump to each ruling:
- Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defence
- A high school football coach has won the right to lead his students in prayer
- Police will be protected from 'Miranda' lawsuits
- There's been a win for doctors challenging opioid convictions
- Another bid from Bayer challenging its weedkiller lawsuits has been nixed
Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defence
How did the Supreme Court rule? The outcome was 6-3, with the court's conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.
In its first major gun decision in more than a decade, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defence.
The decision follows recent mass shootings and is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation's largest cities — including New York, Los Angeles and Boston — as well as elsewhere.
About a quarter of the US population lives in states that are expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law.
This ruling comes as Congress is actively working on gun legislation after recent mass shootings where 19 children and two teachers were killed on May 24 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and 10 people were slain on May 14 at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.
In a statement, US President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the Supreme Court's ruling which, he said, "contradicts both common sense and the constitution, and should deeply trouble us all".
A high school football coach has won the right to lead his students in prayer
How did the Supreme Court rule? The outcome was 6-3 for the coach with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberals in dissent.
The Supreme Court has said that a high school football coach who knelt and prayed on the field after games was protected by the constitution, a decision that opponents said would open the door to "much more coercive prayer" in public schools.
This case forced the justices to wrestle with how to balance the religious and free speech rights of teachers with the rights of students not to feel pressured into participating in religious practices.
The liberal justices in the minority said there was evidence that Bremerton High School Coach Joseph Kennedy's prayers at the 50-yard-line had a coercive effect on students and allowed him to incorporate his "personal religious beliefs into a school event".
Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision "sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion".
However, the justices in the majority emphasised that the coach's prayers came after the games were over and at a time when he wasn't responsible for students and was free to do other things.
Mr Kennedy said in an interview that his first reaction was one of pure joy.
He described the seven years since the dispute began as tough on his family but "absolutely worth it".
Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the school district, said the Supreme Court had "continued its assault on church-state separation", driven by the interests of conservative Christians.
Police will be protected from 'Miranda' lawsuits
How did the Supreme Court rule? The outcome was 6-3, with the court's six conservatives in the majority and its three liberal members dissenting.
The Supreme Court has shielded police from the risk of paying damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements later used against them in court, siding with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.
This decision bars lawsuits against police for using evidence obtained without advising people of their rights — the 'Miranda' warnings the court mandated nearly 60 years ago that have since become the framework through which most Americans understand their rights against police intrusion.
The justices ruled in favour of deputy sheriff Carlos Vega, who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh, who accused the officer of violating his rights under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
Mr Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after deputy Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings. Mr Tekoh was acquitted at trial.
The rights at issue were delineated in the Supreme Court's a landmark 1966 Miranda v Arizona ruling that, under the Fifth Amendment, police — among other things — must tell criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during interrogations before any statements they make may be used in a criminal trial.
There's been a win for doctors challenging opioid convictions
How did the Supreme Court rule? Unanimously, with all nine members in favour.
The US Supreme Court has given two doctors — who were found guilty of misusing their licences in the midst of the opioid epidemic to write thousands of prescriptions for addictive pain medications — another chance to challenge their convictions.
They ruled in favour of Xiulu Ruan and Shakeel Kahn, who had argued in appealing their convictions that their trials were unfair because jurors were not required to consider whether the two physicians had "good faith" reasons to believe their numerous opioid prescriptions were medically valid.
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said that, once defendants produce evidence that they were authorised to dispense controlled substances such as opioids, prosecutors must prove they knew they were acting in an unauthorised manner.
The justices sent the two cases back to federal appeals courts that had previously upheld their convictions for further proceedings, where prosecutors may argue that any mistakes in their jury instructions amounted to harmless errors.
For more than two decades, the US has struggled with an opioid epidemic that, according to federal health officials, has claimed the lives of more than a half million Americans.
Another bid from Bayer challenging its weedkiller lawsuits has been nixed
The Supreme Court rejected another bid from German pharmaceutical and chemical giant Bayer to dismiss litigation alleging that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, as the company as the tries to avoid potentially billions of dollars in damages.
In this case, the justices turned away Bayer's appeal and left in place a lower court decision upholding an $87 million judgement awarded in a lawsuit in California to Alberta and Alva Pilliod, who were diagnosed with cancer after spraying Roundup for more than three decades.
A week earlier, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Bayer in a different Roundup case.
Bayer has argued that the cancer claims over Roundup — and its active ingredient glyphosate — go against sound science and product clearance from the US Environmental Protection Agency.
The company's appeal in the Pilliod case raised an additional challenge, arguing that it would violate the US constitution's due process protections to award punitive damages that far outweigh compensatory damages.
While Bayer had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would stop lawsuits over the weedkiller, the company "continues to stand fully behind its Roundup" and was prepared to defend the product in court, company spokesperson Phillip Blank said.
ABC/wires
