Supreme Court issues four decisions, including on emergency abortion

Washington Post

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued more end-of-the-term rulings. The fourth ruling of the day was on the closely watched Idaho emergency-abortion ruling that was inadvertently posted Wednesday. The Supreme Court allows – for now – emergency abortions to stabilize patients in Idaho, despite the state’s strict abortion ban. The high court ruling applies while litigation in the matter continues.

Ohio v. EPA

The first ruling to be posted was in Ohio v. EPA, which weighed the legality of a major federal initiative to improve public health by reducing smog-forming pollution from power plants and factories that blows across state lines.

In a 5-4 decision, the court stayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, which is meant to reduce harmful industrial pollution that blows across state lines. This comes after the court struck down another major EPA climate rule in 2022.

The decision in Ohio v. EPA deals yet another blow to the Biden administration’s ambitious environmental agenda. The Supreme Court has already struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules on climate change and water pollution.

Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented against Thursday’s ruling, joined by the court’s liberals.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

The second ruling was on Harrington v. Purdue Pharma. The court blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.

Edward Neiger, who represents thousands of victims who stood to benefit from the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement that the Supreme Court blocked, called the decision “a major setback for the families who lost loves ones to overdose and for those still struggling with addiction.” In a statement, he said that “victims have been abandoned by every branch of the government.”

SEC v. Jarkesy

The third decision of the day was from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., on in-house judges for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

With the liberals dissenting, the court ruled that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. The decision in SEC v. Jarkesy is a significant win for conservatives, who have long been chipping away at the power of regulatory agencies and the so-called administrative state.

Recent decisions

On Wednesday, the court rejected a Republican effort to sharply limit when the federal government can ask social media platforms to take down problematic content, saying the lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs who lacked legal standing.

The court also inadvertently posted a ruling it has not yet announced that, while litigation continues, would allow emergency abortions to stabilize patients in states where the procedure is banned. It is extremely rare for a ruling to be posted on the high court’s website before it is issued. The momentous decision overturning Roe v. Wade, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was also made public early, in that case through a leak to the news organization Politico.

The court has about 10 rulings left before wrapping up its term, which usually happens by the end of June but sometimes spills into July.

They include whether it is legal to ban homeless encampments and whether states like Florida and Texas can restrict social media platforms from removing content.

The justices have saved an unusually large number of high-profile cases for the final days of the term. One indication of what’s possibly behind the sluggish pace came last week.

The vote in the court’s ruling to uphold a federal ban on firearms for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders was 8-1. Roberts wrote the majority opinion that spanned just 18 pages.

However, five other justices in the majority chose to write separately, including all three justices nominated by Donald Trump.

In addition, Justice Clarence Thomas penned a 32-page dissent.

While the majority said it was trying to provide clarity for lower courts assessing the validity of other gun-related laws, the multiple separate opinions from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson show a variety of views and unresolved differences.