Here's a preview of six important cases planned for the new Supreme Court term, which begins today

The Supreme Court's new term began Monday, and the justices are expected to tackle several high-profile cases during what will be Justice Neil Gorsuch's first full term. Here are six important cases the justices plan to hear and the issues that will be affected:

Immigrants' rights

Sessions v. Dimaya

• Current law dictates that immigrants — including those here legally — can be deported if they commit a "crime of violence." The case seeks clarification on whether the term "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague.
• James Dimaya, a legal resident, was convicted of two nonviolent burglaries that were classified by the federal government as violent, resulting in his deportation.
• The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law was unconstitutionally vague, but U.S. government disagrees.
• Oral arguments will be heard Monday.

Jennings v. Rodriguez

• The case will determine whether immigrants subject to mandatory detention must be afforded bond hearings with the possibility of being released from custody.
• Current law denies bond hearings to immigrants with criminal records, including minor offenses.
• Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez, who was brought to the U.S. as a child and is a permanent legal resident, was convicted of two misdemeanors and sat in jail for over three years without a bond hearing.
• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an injunction requiring immigrants to be entitled to a bond hearing every six months.
• Oral arguments will be heard Tuesday.

Religious freedom/LGBT rights

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission 

• The case will determine whether a private business or individual has the constitutional right to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings because of their religious beliefs.
• Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was found to have violated the state's anti-discrimination law by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals after he refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips and his lawyers argue that baking a cake should fall under freedom of expression and be protected by the First Amendment.
• The case is on the docket for this term but has not yet been scheduled.

Gerrymandering

Gill v. Whitford

• The case will determine whether partisan gerrymandering, the redrawing of voting districts in order to give one party an advantage, should be legal.
• Current law allows gerrymandering unless the redrawing of districts is based on race.
• Wisconsin law professor William Whitford and 11 other Democrats in Wisconsin argue that the state's Assembly map discriminates against Democratic voters and gives Republicans an unconstitutional advantage. The state of Wisconsin maintains the federal government should stay out of state politics.
• Oral arguments will be heard Tuesday.

Privacy rights and warrantless search and seizure

Carpenter v. US

• The case will determine whether authorities need probable cause and a warrant to obtain someone's cellphone records, or more specifically, location data.
• Current law dictates that authorities need probable cause and a warrant to obtain cellphone communications, but can obtain cellphone records without them.
• Timothy Carpenter, who was convicted of multiple robberies in Michigan, claims his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because police obtained his cellphone location data without a warrant and the information was used to tie him to the robberies and convict him in court.
• The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cellphone records are not protected by the Fourth Amendment and don't need a warrant to be searched by law enforcement.
• The case is on the docket for this term but oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

Workers' rights

Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31

• The case will determine the legality of forcing public sector employees to pay union fees.
• Mark Janus, who works for the state of Illinois, is forced to pay union dues to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Janus and his lawyers argue he shouldn't be forced to contribute to the union, who he believes has contributed to fiscal problems currently plaguing the state.
• Previous rulings have sided with the unions, reasoning that collective bargaining power benefits all employees.
• The case is on the docket for this term but oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.