Sun breaks down four important cases
The Supreme Court wrapped up a historic term on July 1, making some big decisions on important issues including whether or not former President Donald J. Trump should receive immunity from criminal prosecution and whether or not municipalities can punish unhomed people for sleeping outside.
Below are the overviews of some of the larger cases the Court saw this term.
TRUMP V.S. THE U.S.
Presidents and former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts they took while in office, the Supreme Court said in a 6-3 decision in the Trump vs. The U.S. case.
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the majority opinion states. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”
In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor spoke against the ruling.
“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
President Joe Biden also spoke out against the decision.
“I know I will respect the limits of the presidential power, as I have for three and a half years,” he stated in an official statement. “But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.”
GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON
The Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling changes how some municipalities may approach homelessness.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, saying the city’s measures which punish unhomed people for sleeping on public property when they have nowhere else to go does not go against the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.
“Homelessness is complex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced her sharp response to the ruling, saying the policy was “unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” she wrote.
Punishment, the key issue in the case, can include fines of up to several hundred dollars and exclusion orders barring people from public property.
MOYLE V. U.S.
Moyle v. U.S. asks if Idaho hospitals can legally provide emergency care to patients who need it — including abortions if that is the appropriate medical treatment. Specifically, whether Idaho’s near-total ban on abortions prevents doctors from providing medically necessary abortions.
The official opinion on Moyle v. United States was released on June 27.
The court initially agreed to expedite the appeal and temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban. After hearing the case, the court dismissed it as improvidently granted and restored a lower court order allowing emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This returned the case to the lower courts without a ruling on the merits.
Biden provided an official statement on the issue after the ruling was announced.
“Today’s Supreme Court order ensures that women in Idaho can access the emergency medical care they need while this case returns to the lower courts,” he stated. “No woman should be denied care, made to wait until she’s near death, or forced to flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs. This should never happen in America. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in states across the country since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. …”
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also released a statement about the matter.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision preserves, for now, the ability of emergency room doctors in Idaho to provide abortions when a patient’s life or health is at risk,” she said. “Pregnant patients deserve access to all lifesaving medical interventions, no matter where they live. By not ruling on the substance of this critical issue, the court is perpetuating fear and uncertainty about what care is legal and leaves the door open for continued attacks on reproductive health by political extremists.”
LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V. RAIMONDO
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo reversed a 40-year-old decision concerning federal agencies’ power.
In 1984, the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision declared that federal judges should defer to agencies when a law is ambiguous, or Congress does not specify its intentions.
Although initially championed by conservatives, the Chevron doctrine became vilified as an example of overreach by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
In the decision, Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that agencies “have no special competence” in resolving statutory ambiguities — but courts do. The justices came to a decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo with a vote of 6-3.
The Food and Drug Administration is among the agencies likely to be affected by the court’s decision. The FDA makes high-stakes rulings on medications, tobacco products and food additives — what’s safe and effective to put in your mouth, or jab into your arm.
Companies and opponents of controversial drugs may also target the FDA’s decisions on whether to approve new drugs, challenging actions that rely on interpreting ambiguous federal law.
New drugs approvals, for instance, are supposed to be based on “substantial” evidence grounded in “adequate and well-controlled investigations” — which the agency has interpreted to mean studies that include a control group, minimize age and gender biases and standardize doses.
The justices came to a decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo with a vote of 6-3.
The White House called the Chevron decision “yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards,” adding that Biden’s legal team would work with federal agencies to do “everything we can to continue to deploy the extraordinary expertise of the federal workforce.”
Staff Reports
