This term, the Court is actively engaged in deliberating on several cases that encompass pivotal issues at the intersection of politics, free speech, and the expansive realm of social media. These cases represent a significant juncture in legal discourse, grappling with the complex dynamics of how constitutional principles apply to the digital age.
Click to - View CasesIdaho law makes it a crime to perform, or attempt to perform, an abortion, with the lone exception being when the abortion is needed to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” when the health of the mother is in danger. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide if EMTALA preempts Idaho’s law.
In 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone as part of a two-drug regimen to end an early pregnancy. As part of the approval, FDA imposed certain requirements on the drug’s use. In 2016, FDA relaxed those requirements by extending the approved use from seven weeks to ten weeks, reducing the number of required in-person clinical visits, and allowing certified nonphysician health-care providers to prescribe the drug. Then, in 2021, FDA eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement.
Colorado voters sued former President Donald J. Trump and the Colorado secretary of state in state court seeking an order excluding Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot. The plaintiffs argued that Trump was not qualified for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because of his role in the insurrection on January 6, 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the secretary of state would commit a “wrongful act” under state election law if she placed his name on the ballot.
In February 2020, a Texas court granted C.M. a domestic violence protective order against Zackey Rahimi, effective for two years. About a year later, in investigating a separate spate of shootings by Rahimi, police found a pistol, a rifle, magazines, and ammunition in Rahimi’s home. Rahimi was convicted of possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence protective order. In United States vs. Rahimi, the Court weighs the question: Can the government prohibit a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm?
Facing thousands of claims related to opioid painkillers, Purdue Pharma L.P. filed for bankruptcy in 2019. The bankruptcy proceedings resulted in a plan of reorganization that—in addition to resolving opioid claims against Purdue—released related claims that Purdue’s creditors held against members of the family who owned and controlled Purdue (the Sacklers). In exchange, the Sacklers agreed to contribute billions of dollars to Purdue’s bankruptcy estate. The plan was approved by over 95 percent of the voting claimants, but the United States Trustee objected and appealed arguing that such “nondebtor releases” require unanimous consent of the released parties. In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. The Court is now asked to determine whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve releases, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, that extinguish claims held against nondebtor third parties without the claimants’ consent.
This case concerns the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) ability to bring enforcement actions for securities fraud before administrative law judges, rather than in federal district court. The target of an enforcement action argues this venue choice stems from an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the SEC and that the proceeding violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court has the potential to change the way government agency claims are adjudicated.
A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump for conspiring to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.” Trump moved to dismiss the indictment, however, arguing that as a former President he enjoys absolute immunity from criminal liability for official acts that he took during his time in office.
