The Supreme Court is needlessly shrouded in mystery. Among other things, it doesn’t announce which opinions are coming ahead of time, causing unnecessary anxiety and buildup.

Friday is a rare exception. Chief Justice John Roberts announced Thursday, as he customarily does on the second-to-last opinion day, that Friday will be the last day for the term’s opinions.

Six cases remain. These don’t include rulings that could drop at any time on the court’s so-called shadow docket, where the justices make relatively quick decisions on emergency applications.

With that in mind, plus the fact that we don’t know the order in which they’ll come out, the rulings expected Friday morning (starting at 10 a.m. ET) are:

Birthright citizenship (sort of). Technically, the overall legality of President Donald Trump’s attempt to curb the constitutional guarantee of automatic citizenship for people born on U.S. soil isn’t at issue. Rather, the focus is on a procedural aspect of the litigation, specifically whether trial court judges were allowed to grant nationwide injunctions against Trump’s unconstitutional order, as opposed to more limited rulings. But the injunction issue is important in its own right and extends beyond the citizenship question, and whatever the justices say about injunctions will affect the underlying citizenship litigation too.

Technically, the overall legality of President Donald Trump’s attempt to curb the constitutional guarantee of automatic citizenship for people born on U.S. soil isn’t at issue. Rather, the focus is on a procedural aspect of the litigation, specifically whether trial court judges were allowed to grant nationwide injunctions against Trump’s unconstitutional order, as opposed to more limited rulings. But the injunction issue is important in its own right and extends beyond the citizenship question, and whatever the justices say about injunctions will affect the underlying citizenship litigation too. Religion vs. LGBTQ books in public schools. Some Maryland parents want to keep their elementary school-age kids away from LGBTQ-themed books. While the parents say they face an “impossible choice” between subjecting their children to instruction against their beliefs or losing out on public education, school officials say the parents aren’t deprived of religious rights just because their kids are exposed to material the parents find offensive.

Some Maryland parents want to keep their elementary school-age kids away from LGBTQ-themed books. While the parents say they face an “impossible choice” between subjecting their children to instruction against their beliefs or losing out on public education, school officials say the parents aren’t deprived of religious rights just because their kids are exposed to material the parents find offensive. Porn and the First Amendment. An adult industry trade group challenged a Texas law requiring age verification to access pornographic sites. The industry argued that an appeals court used the wrong legal standard when ruling against it. The impending ruling could have vast First Amendment implications beyond pornography.

An adult industry trade group challenged a Texas law requiring age verification to access pornographic sites. The industry argued that an appeals court used the wrong legal standard when ruling against it. The impending ruling could have vast First Amendment implications beyond pornography. Louisiana redistricting. As NBC News reported, this “unusual case” put civil rights groups “in a tentative alliance with Republican officials in defending a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority Black districts for the first time in decades.”

As NBC News reported, this “unusual case” put civil rights groups “in a tentative alliance with Republican officials in defending a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority Black districts for the first time in decades.” Health care and the Constitution. The justices are considering whether a federal health task force is constitutionally structured, in a case involving its recommendation of coverage for HIV prevention medication at no cost to patients under the Affordable Care Act.

The justices are considering whether a federal health task force is constitutionally structured, in a case involving its recommendation of coverage for HIV prevention medication at no cost to patients under the Affordable Care Act. Phone and internet subsidy. This appeal over the government’s provision of affordable phone and internet services to schools, libraries and underserved areas raises a legal issue known as “nondelegation,” which looks at whether Congress properly outsourced its power, in this case to the Federal Communications Commission and a private nonprofit.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.