The Supreme Court continues to hear oral arguments via teleconference this week, with several high-profile cases on the calendar dealing with issues including the Electoral College, religious freedom, and President Trump's tax returns.
Here is a breakdown of what is in store for the high court this week.
Trump tax returns
President Trump has faced several attempts by others to access his tax returns after he declined to release them during his 2016 campaign. Three of those attempts have resulted in cases now before the Supreme Court. Oral arguments for them will take place on Tuesday.
One case, Trump v. Vance, stems from the Manhattan District Attorney's office's investigation of the president and the Trump Organization for possible state crimes related to a payment made to Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors issued grand jury subpoenas to the Trump Organization as well as to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA for financial records including his tax returns.
Trump contends that according to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, a state court should not be allowed to investigate a sitting president. Lower courts disagreed and ruled that prosecutors are able to enforce the subpoenas, but they remain blocked while the Supreme Court handles the case.
The other two cases, Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, have been consolidated as they both deal with Democrat-led House committees subpoenaing records, including tax returns from Trump's financial institutions.
A House Oversight Committee subpoena of Mazars seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011, including personal records and records of various affiliated businesses and entities. Democrats pursued the subpoena after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that the president's accountants routinely and improperly altered his financial statements -- including some signed by Mazars -- to misrepresent his assets and liabilities.
In the other case, the House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump's financial records, which may or may not include his tax returns, as Deutsche Bank has claimed they do not have them.
In both cases, the president lost lower court rulings after arguing that the committees lacked a legitimate legislative purpose for wanting the records and that they are merely trying to expose the president's personal information.
State control over the Electoral College
Two more cases going before the court deal with the Electoral College, and whether states can pass laws requiring electors to vote a certain way. These laws, known as "faithless elector" laws, penalize electors for voting for a candidate other than the one they are directed to choose under that law.
In the cases of Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, electors from states whose popular votes went to Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine in 2016 wished to vote for other candidates. They sued to challenge Washington and Colorado state laws that imposed fines for doing so, claiming they violate the First Amendment. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the law, while the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Colorado law is unconstitutional.
These cases will be heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
When does a religious organization's employee qualify as a "minister"?
A 2012 Supreme Court ruling said that religious organizations had a "ministerial exception" from employment discrimination lawsuits. The question is when does that exception apply? In the cases of Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, teachers at religious schools did not have their contracts renewed, allegedly due to age discrimination and health reasons, respectively.
The teachers filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and were granted permission to sue, and district courts ruled that the ministerial exception barred both of them from taking action. The Ninth Circuit reversed both, claiming that because they only teach religious studies and are not religious leaders themselves, their cases do not qualify for the exception and can, therefore, move forward.
These cases are being heard by the Supreme Court on Monday.
Can a Creek Nation member be tried in state court for a crime committed on historical Creek lands in Oklahoma?
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case brought by Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Creek Nation, who claims that a state criminal case against him in which he was convicted of first-degree rape of a child is based on a crime he was accused of committing on Creek land in eastern Oklahoma.
The Major Crimes Act says that federal courts -- not state courts -- have jurisdiction over crimes on Native American reservations, but the status of eastern Oklahoma has been called into question. This is the second case in recent years raising the issue of whether the reservation status of the land was actually repealed when Oklahoma became a state in 1906. A ruling in favor of McGirt could have drastic repercussions regarding past criminal cases originating in the region.
Fox News' Gregg Re contributed to this report.