- The Supreme Court will take on issues surrounding former President Donald Trump, the Biden administration's communications with social media companies to censor online speech, and abortion pills in the run-up to the 2024 election.
- Abortion is back at the Supreme Court with two cases on the issue, just two years after the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
- The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in February regarding Trump's eligibility to serve as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Issues involving chemical abortion drugs, former President Donald Trump and the Biden administration's encouragement of internet censorship are at the top of the Supreme Court's list of cases in the new year.
Only one decision has been announced so far this term, but the justices have already ruled on gun restrictions for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders, government officials blocking voters on social media, Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement, and more. listening to the discussion. In other pending cases, the Supreme Court must address several hot-button issues ahead of the 2024 election.
abortion
Just two years after overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the justices bring another major abortion case challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. agreed to try the case. (Related: Democrats aim to 'influence the outcome' of major cases in 2024 through public pressure on SCOTUS, legal expert says)
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kaksmarik ruled in April that the FDA must revoke approval of the pill. The Fifth Circuit subsequently declined to completely remove the pill from the market, but did not allow the pill to be sent by mail or used late in pregnancy, among other decisions rescinding FDA regulations issued in 2016 and 2021. I supported the part that would expand access to allow.
However, under an emergency order issued by the Supreme Court in April, both decisions are on hold until the Supreme Court rules on the case.
The Supreme Court also agreed Friday to hear a second major case considering whether federal law requires emergency room doctors to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law. law, which prohibits abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. The Biden administration insists that emergency medical care and the workforce are critical. activityThe bill instructs doctors not to turn away patients who need “emergency stabilization treatment,” and pre-empts a ban in Idaho that requires doctors to perform emergency abortions.
On Friday, the court agreed to allow Idaho's ban to remain in effect until the case is heard in April.
censorship
The Supreme Court will consider collaboration between the Biden administration and social media companies to suppress online speech in Murthy v. Missouri. District Court Judge Terry A. Doty called the government's censorship efforts “Orwellian” in a July 4 ruling that found the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment. The Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri “offered evidence of massive censorship by Defendants,” he said. The White House ordered federal agencies to suppress speech based on its content. ”
The Supreme Court suspended the ruling in October pending consideration of the appeal. Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that the ruling “gives the government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to distort the expression of views on a media that increasingly controls dissemination.” He wrote that it could be interpreted as “I gave him.” of news. ”
Election officials in eight states filed complaints. simple Urging the Supreme Court to overrule the Court of Appeals' decision, it said communications made with platforms during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles were “substantially unfounded” ahead of the “important and contested 2024 election period.” He expressed regret that it had ended.
The Supreme Court will also hear a case brought by former New York City Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo to pressure banks and insurance companies not to do business with the National Rifle Association. Aaron Tell, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told the Daily Caller News Foundation in November that there were “clear similarities” between the cases. .
“In both cases, government officials overstepped constitutional boundaries and forced private companies to censor or exclude speakers who expressed views that government officials disliked,” he said. “
playing cards
As the 2024 election approaches, issues surrounding former President Donald Trump are creeping onto the court's agenda.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on February 8 in Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that he is ineligible to participate in the state's primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. . The justices' decision follows a Dec. 28 ruling by Democratic Maine Secretary of State Shena Bellows that found Trump ineligible to appear in court, and other states to remove Trump from their ballots. It will become clear whether similar measures can be taken to
The justices also agreed to hear a case regarding the scope of the obstruction law used to indict not only President Trump but also hundreds of other defendants on January 6th.
Section 1512(c)(2) of the Act threatens fines or up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or obstructs any public proceeding.” The case is related to two of the four charges Jack Smith brought against Trump for election interference.
If the Supreme Court limits its scope, it could affect the former president's case and undermine the Jan. 6 case.
Special Counsel Jack Smith had already asked the justices in December to consider Trump's presidential immunity appeal before lower courts consider it, but the justices ultimately rejected the request. Still, the matter is likely to be back before the justices soon, as the D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the matter on January 9 and issue a decision some time thereafter.
Other lawsuits to watch in the future
The Supreme Court hears arguments January 17th Two lawsuits challenging “Chevron deference,” a legal doctrine that directs courts to defer to enforcement agencies' interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous. Critics say the doctrine allows federal agencies to adopt expansive interpretations of statutes that expand their powers while circumventing judicial checks and balances.
in Februarythe Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a pair of cases, one challenging a Trump administration-era federal ban on bump stocks and another examining red state laws aimed at preventing viewpoint censorship on social media.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
