SCOTUS has been dropping a lot of important rulings, with the biggest ones due to hit next Monday. Here’s a quick rundown of this week’s rulings:
Murthy v MO:
This case was essentially about the times the government pressured social media companies to censor topics. The question at the heart of this case was whether the government’s conduct amounted to pressure on the platforms, which is permitted, or coercion of them, which is forbidden. The court opted to punt and instead ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, thereby dismissing the case.
Barrett laid out all the ways in which the plaintiffs did not meet the standard that would have allowed the court to consider the case. For instance, Jim Hoft was suing, claiming that Twitter’s policies caused his articles and accounts to be targeted. However, Twitter’s policies had been in place long before the meetings with the government, which Jim claimed led Twitter to act against him. Also, it was his brother’s account that had been suspended, not his.
Alito’s dissent pointed out that it was in the various social media companies’ best interest to keep the government happy so they could keep their Section 230 protections. He then chronicled all the ways that the government had subtly applied pressure on Facebook in the case of plaintiff Hines.
While many people felt that this was a bad ruling from the court, this is NOT the only Social Media Censorship case on the docket. We are still waiting for a ruling in NetChoice v Paxton - which is a case about First Amendment protections.
Moyle v US:
This is being presented as a loss for the Pro-Life crowd, and it is, but it also isn’t. So, this ruling is not on the underlying case at all but on an injunction that is put in place while the case is being heard. The TL;DR is that Idaho passed an abortion ban that only provides for saving a mother from death. The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which does not mention abortion as a treatment option, provides for saving the mother's fertility and general health as well. The feds sued the Idaho legislature, claiming that the Idaho Ban is too restrictive and counter to EMTALA. While the suit is happening, the court put an injunction in place to allow Idaho hospitals to operate under EMTALA, not the State law. Idaho fought the Injunction and lost their way up to SCOTUS. SCOTUS put a pause, aka “stay," on the injunction while they heard the case for the INJUNCTION - not the entire case! SCOTUS is now lifting that stay, meaning hospitals in Idaho are operating under EMTALA while the case of Moyle v US continues in the lower district court.
The major pro-life organization in Idaho, Idaho Family Policy Center, released a statement about the case on Monday when the draft of the case was accidentally posted to SCOTUS’s docket. They said that while the decision was disappointing, it was not a surprise. This reason is precisely why they had sponsored a bill that included language that would be EMTALA-compliant despite objections from other pro-life groups.
City of Grants Pass v Johnson:
Reporter Katie Buehler sums this case up: “Grants Pass’ enforcement of its generally enforceable ordinance doesn’t constitute “cruel and unusual punishment’ under the 8th Amendment based on a person’s status instead of their criminal acts, Gorsuch wrote for the court.” Grants Pass, Oregon, has a public camping law that prohibits camping on public property, regardless of your situation.
This is a massive win for cities that don’t want to put up with issues like Occupy or the pro-Palestinian encampments, especially as we head into the summer and protest season.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo:
This case, which is actually two cases mashed together as SCOTUS likes to do, hinges on the interpretation of a previous case, Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council. Chevron, one of the most cited cases, was initially considered a win for conservatives under Reagan. It ruled that when the law in question was ambiguous, the court must defer to the federal agency’s regulations for clarification.
This new 6-3 ruling, with KBJ recused from one of the cases, completely upends Chevron. The court is now ordered to use its judgment to decide if a federal agency is overstepping its authority.
Fischer v US:
This one is a massive ruling as it affects about 350 J6 defendants and even has implications for Trump’s J6 case, if that continues after the Immunity ruling drops. Julie Kelly has a more in-depth write-up here. Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that section (c)(2), the “obstruction of an official proceeding” part of the law that was used against the J6 people and Trump, was tethered to section (c)(1), which refers to objects and documents. Therefore, the government cannot use c2 against the J6 defendants.
You can find all of SCOTUS’s recent decisions on their website. We are still waiting for NetChoice v Paxton and Trump’s presidential immunity decisions. There will be at least one more decision day on Monday, July 1st.
Lorraine Yuriar is a wife, mother, and lifelong conservative, currently stuck in a very blue state.
I understand the nuances that come with the interpretation of Law for each situation, but when does the endless litigation of it become an eternal labyrinth forced upon the system either by nefarious actions or unsound decisions? There has to be a fundamental truth or foundation upon which a common moral code and common sense wisdom are central in determining justice. “What a mangled web WE weave”. Thank you Lorraine, for keeping us informed and educated on the legal issues at hand. You are appreciated. Stay Frothy