A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they’ll add more high-profile issues to what already promises to be a consequential term, beginning in October.

This month, the court has already issued big decisions on health care and religious freedom. And next term, the high court has agreed to take on cases about abortion and guns. The court on Monday passed on two potentially big cases but was still considering others. Here are the issues the court declined and others the court has not yet acted on:

The court on Monday declined to take an appeal by a Virginia school board asking the justices to uphold a policy that prohibits transgender students from using school bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Lower courts had struck down the policy. The case has been around for six years, since then-high school student Gavin Grimm filed a federal lawsuit over the Gloucester County board’s refusal to allow him to use the boys’ bathroom.

Seventeen years after shocking photographs of prisoners being abused at the U.S.-run prison in Abu Ghraib were first made public, Iraqis who claim they were victims of torture are still seeking their day in court against a U.S. defense contractor that supplied the military with interrogators. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take an appeal by the company, CACI Premier Technology of Arlington, Virginia. It was appealing to the court on a technical legal issue that could have delayed or even prevented a trial. The inmates say they were beaten and tortured by military police officers who were acting at the direction of civilian interrogators who wanted the inmates “softened up” for questioning. CACI says none of its interrogators is linked to the abuse suffered by the men who are suing.

The IDOC imposed a sanction requiring him to pay over $8,000 in restitution for the guard’s medical expenses, according to the Kokomo Tribune.

The agency then started taking deposits made to Isby’s prison account and using they money toward restitution. The withdrawals continued after Isby was transferred to Miami Correctional.

The appeals court argued the IDOC may impose restitution as a disciplinary action. The court also said while state law governs and provides means for reviewing administrative agency actions, it exempts actions related to an offender within the agency’s jurisdiction.