Idaho Abortion Ban Getting Supreme Court Review

Donald Trump may still get a victory even if the Supreme Court rejects his claim for blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. Several key justices seemed inclined during arguments on Thursday to send Trump’s case back to the trial court to determine whether he was acting in his official capacity when he tried to overturn the 2020 election and during the run-up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by his supporters. Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lively and, at times, surprising arguments in Trump’s appeal, and discuss how the court’s decision could delay any future trial until after the November election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court will hear its second abortion case of the term, this time on Idaho’s ban and the reach of federal law in anti-abortion states. The Biden administration argued that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide an abortion when there is a serious risk of harm to the mother. Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch joins Cases and Controversies to explain why Idaho says its state law requires an abortion only when necessary to save the mother’s life. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court will consider whether prosecutors went too far in charging Jan. 6 rioters with an Enron-era statute, in a case that could have implications for the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Former Boston Police officer Joseph Fischer, who participated in the Capitol breach, hopes to tap into concerns by some justices that prosecutors have too much discretion. It's something the court's pulled back on in recent terms. Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the implications for Jan. 6 defendants, federal courts, and Trump, whose bid for immunity from criminal prosecution over alleged election interference will be heard April 25. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has charged Trump under the same provision, which prohibits interference with an official proceeding. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A fight over an Oregon city’s attempt to outlaw homelessness would make headlines in any other term. But the case, said to be the first of its kind in decades and set for argument April 22, has flown under the radar. The justices are being asked if the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits Grants Pass from enforcing an ordinance that makes it unlawful to sleep on public property. “This is the first case the Supreme Court has taken up on homelessness in 40 years,” said Antonia Fasanelli, the executive director of the National Homelessness Law Center. Fasanelli joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what’s at stake in a case that raises an issue of national importance as cities try to find solutions to a rise in homelessness. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Arguments in the challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone suggest the Supreme Court will nix the dispute on technical standing grounds. Justices from across the ideological spectrum suggested the anti-abortion doctors at the center of the case were asking too much. Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lopsided arguments that focused little on the merits and almost exclusively on whether the doctors could prevent access to the drug nationwide. They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s action—or inaction—means South Carolina can use an unconstitutional voting map in the upcoming election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Lower court rulings that largely halted Biden administration communication with social media companies to combat misinformation about Covid and the 2020 election faced skepticism from Supreme Court justices. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the March 18 arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo, a second First Amendment fight about alleged government censorship. They also discuss the legal whiplash over a Texas law that makes it a crime to illegally enter the US through the state. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Biden administration and others are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender kids despite its refusal to resolve related disputes over youth sports and student bathroom use. The ACLU’s Li Nowlin-Sohl joins Cases and Controversies to discuss bans out of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Idaho pending before the court, and the chances that the justices will finally weigh in. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Headlines touting the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado presidential ballot obscured division among the justices over the Constitution’s insurrection clause. UC Davis School of Law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat joins Cases and Controversies to explain what the justices did and didn’t agree on March 4 regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that means for the November election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It was a big week at the Supreme Court with arguments over social media and guns, and a grant on Donald Trump’s bid for immunity from prosecution over alleged election interference. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler detail arguments in Garland v. Cargill, the challenge to the federal government’s ban on so-called bump stocks, and Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, challenging state laws that target social media companies. They also explain the court’s decision to weigh into the criminal prosecution of Trump in Washington in the 2020 election case. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in fights over laws in Florida and Texas that seek to stop social media platforms from censoring conservative speech online. At issue are provisions that require platforms to keep up certain kinds of content and inform users when posts are removed. The justices are being asked to decide if those requirements are constitutional under the First Amendment’s right to editorial judgment. Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices are likely to approach a case that could impact public discourse online for decades to come. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.