Justices Walking 'Tightrope' With Modest Trump Victories

Obamacare is back before the Supreme Court in a challenge to its no-cost coverage requirements for certain preventive health services. The justices will weigh the constitutionality of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends the tests and treatments insurers should cover, when they return to the bench on Monday for the April sitting. If the lower court's decision is upheld, "it is possible, given the posture of the case, that over 150 million Americans lose free coverage of hundreds of benefits," said Sara Rosenbaum, an emerita professor of health law and policy at George Washington University. Rosenbaum joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about why the case is more about power than it is public health and what's at stake if the court does away with the insurance coverage that’s caught in its crosshairs. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court's attempt to avoid a confrontation with President Donald Trump has real world costs, said Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck. Vladeck spoke with Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr about the flurry of recent rulings from the justices in emergency requests involving the administration's policies. The majority of the justices have been careful not to be overly critical of the president and have at times granted him "modest procedural wins," Vladeck said. But those efforts have real world costs, he added. Vladeck pointed to the court's recent action, lifting a temporary pause on the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. "The question is, how long can the justices get away with walking this tightrope before they're actually sacrificing too much in the name of not unduly provoking the confrontation with Trump," Vladeck said. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared ready to side with a religious group seeking an unemployment tax exemption, in the first of three church-state disputes on tap in coming weeks. "I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions," Justice Elena Kagan said. "And we certainly don't do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach." Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus., and take a look of some of the court's recent opinions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The federal government appeared likely to win a high-stakes appeal over a multibillion-dollar telecommunications fund while securing a win on Biden-era regulations on build-at-home "ghost guns." Several justices during arguments March 26 in FCC v. Consumers' Research, appeared hesitant to reinvigorate the so-called nondelegation doctrine to strike down the Universal Service Fund. The fund is intended to increase broadband access to rural and low income areas. Hosts Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson also discuss the court's 7-2 'ghost gun' ruling where liberal justices were joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The hosts also highlight the upcoming argument in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a case about South Carolina's decision to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. - Produced by David Schultz

The Supreme Court will consider a case at the end of March that could limit Congress’ ability to let federal regulators determine what public health and safety standards are necessary. Depending on what the court decides, any statute that grants discretion to an agency could be open for re-review, said Jessica Ellsworth, a partner at Hogan Lovells. "There's probably hundreds of thousands of places in the US code that there are terms used like 'in the public interest,' whether something is 'necessary' and 'appropriate,' whether something is 'reasonable,' whether something is 'fair' or 'unfair,' whether it's 'essential,'" she said. Ellsworth joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the nondelegation doctrine and how this legal principle, which the court has been asked to revive, could impact the federal telecom subsidy program at issue and other regulations more broadly. The hosts also chat about a social media post from President Donald Trump that garnered a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

After a slow start, Supreme Court justices will hear consequential disputes as they head into second half of the term. "This might be the eye in the storm that this was kind of a bit of a slower term," said Goodwin partner Brian Burgess. "There's some big, big cases ahead." Burgess highlights cases involving religious rights, Obamacare, and forum shopping with Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A fight over plans for a privately owned nuclear waste storage facility in Texas seemed to divide the US Supreme Court as the justices wrestled with a federal agency’s regulatory authority and who can challenge it. Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler unpack Wednesday’s arguments in the dispute over a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license that would have moved as much as 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel to a privately owned facility. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency didn’t have the authority to grant the license after Texas and neighboring landowners challenged it in court. It's unclear if the court will affirm that ruling. A decision is due by the end of June or early July. The hosts also chat about the most significant ruling to come from the Supreme Court so far in litigation against actions President Donald Trump has taken since returning to office. A divided court rejected his request to toss out a district court order that forced him to pay $2 billion in federal foreign aid. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court hears argument March 4 in a case over gun industry protections from lawsuits. The dispute involving Mexico and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. centers on whether exceptions to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act open manufacturers to court challenges. Mexico alleges gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for drug cartels and the law allows suits when industry knowingly violates firearms laws in a way that causes injury. Industry says it's shielded, but the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said not so fast. Cases and Controversies discusses the case with Georgia State law professor Timothy Lytton. He's filed a brief on behalf of neither party advocating for one of the law's exceptions opening gunmakers to potential liability. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Producer: Mo Barrow 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- has been pulled into its first dispute over a Trump administration action with more cases likely coming its way. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices in an emergency request to toss out a temporary restraining order that stopped President Donald Trump from firing the head of the US Office of Special Counsel. Lower courts have issued TROs in response to Trump’s executive actions now testing presidential authority to reshape the federal workforce, government spending, and citizenship rights. Thomas Berry, the director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the first case before the high court. Guest: Thomas Berry, Cato Institute Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court is confronting the stark reality that, unlike the other two branches of government, the court has no real power to enforce its decisions. Should someone — whether government official or private citizen — refuse to comply, the justices have no army or constitutional spending power to use as a cudgel, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr writes in a new longform essay. That age-old quandary is becoming newly relevant as Donald Trump tries to bulldoze his way through longstanding legal constraints in the opening weeks of his second term as president. As lawsuits over birthright citizenship, spending cuts, and workforce purges make their way to the high court, the cases carry the potential for a genuine constitutional crisis. What happens, Chief Justice John Roberts must ask himself, if Trump loses and then defies the court? A lawsuit filed in 1801 when the Supreme Court was an untested institution posed a similar dilemma for Chief Justice John Marshall — and more recently, danger signs have been growing. Article by Greg Stohr read by Catherine Vassilopolos Do you have feedback on Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690