The US Supreme Court's monumental decisions loom over America this June. Will it lead to violence?
As the weather warms up in the United States with the arrival of summer, the relentless grind of school and work slows down.
The gentler pace of June also affects the business of government.
Congress will soon take a month-long break, with even President Joe Biden expected to spend occasional long weekends at his beach house in Delaware.
But as many Americans plan holidays and barbecues, some feel an impending sense of doom. 
The US Supreme Court, on deadline to get 13 decisions off its docket before breaking for the season, is poised to dramatically reshape American life, potentially for decades.
Two decisions in particular — one on the future of abortion access and the other on gun rights — are being keenly watched.
Meanwhile, a House committee investigating the January 6 riot is putting pressure on the Department of Justice to potentially charge Donald Trump with a crime.
But even that may not stop the former US president from announcing another bid for the White House within weeks.
Whether Trump runs again or not, he has already left an indelible mark on American society. 
His legacy in the Supreme Court could soon be felt. 
And, as temperatures rise in America's capital, so too do political tensions.
This series of fraught decisions and announcements could be enough to unleash another summer of violence and dissent.
The US Supreme Court has been sitting for more than two centuries, retaining its quaint traditions and its cloak of secrecy.
When the justices meet at the bench to hear a case, they begin their day with what's called a "judicial handshake" — a symbol of their unity, even when they disagree on points of law.
While that tradition might continue, the court itself has never seemed so divided and its standing with part of the American community so uneasy.
During his time in the White House, Mr Trump was able to install three judges to the nine-person bench, dramatically shifting the ideological balance of the highest court in the land.
Now that conservative super-majority will determine the fate of two of the most vexing issues in American life: abortion and guns.
As soon as tomorrow, the court could strike down a century-old restriction on carrying concealed firearms in New York. 
Depending on the reasoning underpinning the decision, it could mean that states can only restrict gun ownership in the most limited of cases.
At the same time, the Senate is making headway on negotiations to strengthen federal gun-safety laws.
The bill could be knocked out even before it reaches a vote.
Since an extraordinary leak of a Supreme Court draft decision in May, the most highly — or fearfully — anticipated ruling is on abortion access.
Here's what we know about a leaked bombshell document about the US Supreme Court's plans for America's abortion law. 
Unless multiple justices have had a major change of heart, they are expected to overturn decades of precedent by arguing there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
If that happens, the court will return to the states the power to determine whether — and under what circumstances — abortion should or should not be legal.
For some Americans, such as those in the anti-abortion movement, the possibility of such colossal social change is cause for celebration.
But for others, it represents a devastating backslide into an earlier, more dangerous era.
Support for abortion in the US varies from state to state. But at a national level, a 61 per cent majority of American adults say it should be legal in all or most cases.
The position that Americans take on gun regulation is far murkier: Polls show a majority of adults support some tighter measures, but the percentage has fallen since the early 1990s, despite an increasing number of mass shootings.
It's clear that, after the recent massacre at a Texas primary school — which left 19 children and two teachers dead — Americans are currently ready for change.
On face value, the two decisions appear contradictory.
If, as expected, the court overturns the earlier Roe v Wade abortion ruling, it will effectively be saying abortion rights can be determined by individual states, passing more power back to state-level officials.
But in the New York gun case — which comes soon after another recent mass shooting in the state's city of Buffalo — the court may well strip states of the power to limit gun ownership, finding that such laws run afoul of the Second Amendment.
The consistency is ideological, however.
Through a conservative lens, the right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the constitution, whereas the right to an abortion is based on an implied right to privacy, as interpreted by a progressive slate of justices in the 1970s.
If the current justices claim their predecessors erred, thereby toppling nearly 50 years of abortion access, it may raise questions about the court's authority.
The Supreme Court is not an elected body.
It is meant to sit above the chaos of Congress and the White House, and act as a custodian of the Bill of Rights.
But as late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg often said: "The Court should never be influenced by the weather of the day, but inevitably they will be influenced by the climate of the era."
The US political system is meant to allow people to elect representatives who best represent their values when deciding laws.
Supreme Court justices are then appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to set the framework in which those laws operate.
But the system is imperfect, with the makeup of the electoral college often determining who becomes President, sometimes without a majority of the overall votes.
Mr Trump was able to choose three members of the current nine-member court, despite receiving fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
His lifelong appointments were approved by senators who, at that time, represented less than half the country's population.
As it currently stands, the Senate is split 50-50, with Democrats representing 41.5 million more people than their Republican colleagues.
Mr Trump was not the first Republican president to understand the transformative power of selecting Supreme Court justices aligned with his worldview.
Former president Richard Nixon nominated six justices during his time in office, four of whom were confirmed in the Senate.
He arguably fulfilled his campaign promise to fill the bench with "caretakers of the constitution and servants of the people, not super-legislators". 
But the project he started, carried on by his party over decades, didn't reach fruition until Justice Ginsburg's death and the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett just weeks before a new president entered the Oval Office.
The fourth of Trump's picks, rushed through in the upheaval of an election campaign, cemented the court's current ideological bent.
It also led to accusations from Democrats and others that the court has been unfairly stacked with conservatives who don't represent the will of the people.
Far from being an impartial caretaker, the Supreme Court is now more often seen as a powerful political tool to be won and wielded.
It is also the battleground for many of America's most-heated debates.
When the draft ruling overturning Roe v Wade was leaked, those for and against abortion rights quickly gathered outside the court, where barriers were erected within minutes.
The protests were rowdy but, for the most part, peaceful.
But elsewhere some have already taken their dismay in a more dangerous direction.
The organisation Ruth Sent Us — which has been criticised for taking Justice Ginsburg's name — posted the addresses of the current justices online, making them open targets for harassment.
Earlier this month, a 26-year-old Californian man was arrested close to the Maryland home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. When arrested, he was carrying a Glock pistol, zip ties, pepper spray and a tactical knife.
He has since been charged with attempted murder.
The case is emblematic of the deep distrust and anger building towards the Supreme Court for decisions it has made or will likely make soon.
High fences around the building provide a neat metaphor for the growing chasm between the institution and those whose rights it is meant to protect.
All nine justices have received beefed-up security as they clear a backlog of cases in a final flurry before the summer break.
And the decisions will not be handed down in a vacuum. 
The House committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol is currently holding a series of public hearings, reminding Americans how close violence came to the heart of their democracy only slightly more than a year ago.
It was the culmination of an attempt to overturn a legal election, fuelled by the falsehood of widespread election fraud. 
The fury of the mob was fomented by someone who told them power was being stolen from them.
Right now, some Americans believe their rights are being taken from them.
Swirling tensions could soon boil over.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be a stabilising force.
Instead, by undoing rulings many believed to be settled law, it risks providing the spark that lights the fuse on a national uprising.
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn, and work.
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.
AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)

source