For its observers, the Supreme Court’s schedule involves a lot of waiting. Cases the justices accept usually take months to get to oral arguments. After those arguments, more months pass before the release of a decision. Thus, a term that begins in October tends to not see big opinions handed down until June — the last full month the justices sit.
The justices heard their last case for the term at the end of April. Now, they and their clerks are focused predominately on finishing the various majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions for public release. Thus, the next six weeks will turn from famine to feast for those consuming Supreme Court decisions, the time when the court is most front and center in the public eye.
First, we will have new rulings regarding abortion. Though Dobbs v. Jackson largely returned the issue to the states, some federal issues remain. One case concerns several decisions by the FDA approving distribution of mifepristone, an abortion pill. The court seems likely to avoid the central question, though, and to decide that those suing do not have standing to bring the case.
Another case out of Idaho concerns whether federal regulations regarding treating emergency medical conditions overrule certain aspects of state abortion restrictions. This case is a stretch for the Biden administration, which is seeking any way possible to limit state prohibitions on abortion. The case will help set the course for states’ freedom in abortion regulation going forward.
Second, we will have important decisions regarding the administrative state. For some time, courts have afforded expansive deference to bureaucrats, thereby permitting them to exercise essentially legislative power in the way they regulate. The Supreme Court has taken some modest steps to rein in this deference in recent years. However, a case argued in January might result in the court removing that deference almost entirely.
Some might call this move an enlargement of the justices’ power. But it really will signal a move toward constitutional government, demanding that unelected bureaucrats do less of the work that is the duty of the people’s representatives in Congress.
Third, we will have cases regarding governmental regulation of social media. Both the political Left and Right have some interest in giving social media platforms more rules and responsibility, whether that be conservatives wanting a level playing field for all views or progressives desiring the limitation on “misinformation.” But both sides also worry about how particular regulations will affect the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. With the importance of social media in our public discourse, the court must begin in earnest to lay out the regulatory boundaries for it.
Fourth and finally, we will have some decision regarding former President Donald Trump. In addition to the already-decided case of ballot access, the court will determine the extent of presidential immunity from prosecution in relation to special counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president for his words and actions on Jan. 6, 2021.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Of course, many will look to this case through a partisan lens and see only the effect the decision might have on the 2024 presidential election. But the case has broader, deeper ramifications that all sides should consider beyond their opinion of Trump. The extent of presidential immunity concerns how to maintain the rule of law, both in holding all accountable but also in giving the country’s chief law enforcement official the needed tools to exercise the nation’s executive power.
These cases and more will bring the Supreme Court into the regular headlines in the coming six weeks. In them, we will see how well the court follows its role as the highest judicial body in the country. Will it be faithful to the Constitution and to the rule of law in its decisions and reasoning? Time will tell. Stay tuned.
Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.