The Supreme Court issued four more opinions on Thursday, but stopped short of issuing its long-awaited decision on former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from criminal prosecution ahead of Thursday night’s presidential debate between Trump and President Biden.
Below you will find an overview of all the decisions taken by the Court on June 27, including an important ruling on abortion.
🏥 Abortion in health emergencies
Case: Moyle vs. United States
How the judges ruled and what it means: The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration in a 6-3 decision when it rejected an appeal from Idaho, sidestepping the question of whether the Biden administration’s interpretation of federal law conflicted with Idaho’s abortion ban. The ruling means emergency room doctors can now perform emergency abortions in Idaho, despite the state’s near-total ban on abortion. The case will now proceed to lower courts. And if key questions remain unanswered, the issue could end up back before the Supreme Court.
A little background: Following the example of the Supreme Court Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization In its 2022 executive order, the Biden administration said federal law would allow doctors to perform emergency abortions in cases where a woman faces serious health risks.
Idaho officials disputed the Biden administration’s decision, saying the federal law conflicts with state law banning abortions. Idaho is one of 14 states that have a complete ban on abortion, with very limited exceptions, including when it is “necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.” Otherwise, anyone who performs the procedure could face criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison, and healthcare providers risk losing their medical licenses.
Notable Advice Quote: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson partly agree and partly disagree with the decision. “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It’s a postponement,” she wrote. “While this court drags its feet and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing medical emergencies remain in a precarious position because their doctors remain in the dark about what the law requires.”
🌎 Environmental protection suspended
Case: Ohio vs. EPA
How the judges ruled and what it means: The Biden administration suffered another blow from the Supreme Court on Thursday for its ambitious environmental plan. The justices’ 5-4 ruling temporarily ends the “good neighbor” provision of the Biden administration’s Clean Air Act, which aims to reduce air pollution from factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states that blows across state lines. The rule is on hold while legal challenges play out.
Some background: Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, energy companies and other industry groups have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule, saying it is costly and ineffective. Meanwhile, the EPA has alleged that the pollutants are linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death. In a landmark 2022 decision, the Supreme Court also limited the EPA’s authority to combat climate change and water pollution.
💊 Rejection of Opioid Settlement
Case: Harrington vs. Purdue Pharma
How the judges ruled: The Supreme Court blocked a nationwide $6 billion settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would have shielded wealthy business owners from civil lawsuits over the opioid epidemic in exchange for billions of dollars to help address the crisis. In a 5-4 vote, the justices blocked the agreement between state and local governments and opioid-addicted victims.
What it means: In 2019, Purdue Pharma went bankrupt, but the Sackler family, which owns Purdue Pharma, has not filed for bankruptcy itself. The ruling means the Sacklers cannot receive immunity from liability in opioid lawsuits. The case also sets a framework for similar agreements that protect a third party from legal liability.
Notable advice quote: Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion: “Nothing in current law authorizes Sackler’s dismissal.”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one of the four who dissented, wrote: “Opioid victims and other future victims of mass torts will suffer immensely from today’s unfortunate and destabilizing decision.”
❌ Restrictive powers of federal agencies
Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
How the judges ruled and what it means: In a 6-3 decision, the justices placed new limits on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s power to combat securities fraud, ruling that the federal agency’s use of internal courts is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that people accused of fraud by the SEC have a right to a jury trial in federal court.
A little background: The SEC was created during the Great Depression to ensure that financial markets remained fair and that investors were protected. George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager, sued the SEC after claiming he violated securities laws and failed to be truthful about two hedge funds he supervised. Following an internal SEC procedure, Jarkesy had to pay a hefty fine and was barred from certain positions in the industry. He argued that the case should have been heard in a federal court instead of an SEC court.
Elon Musk and Mark Cuban support Jarkesy.
What the judges said: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that a defendant facing an SEC fraud case “has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral jury. Rather than recognizing that right, the dissent would allow Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the executive branch.”
Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting from the two other liberal justices, worried about stripping the power of federal agencies, writing, “The constitutionality of hundreds of laws could now be at risk, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws passed by Congress.”
