General SCOTUS stuff

Yeah, we shouldn’t expect this court to put human rights above states’ rights. They will allow the ban.

I don’t think SCOTUS has a good record on protecting bodily autonomy.

I personally don’t think that you need the end of that sentence

And the fun part is, your modification works for pretty much the entirety of the history of the Republic!

This might be the worst thing this treasonous scumbag has done.

Alternatively, it’s the future he’s creating for many more kids through his daily work at SCOTUS (and thus , just the beginning…)

scotusblog:

The court holds that the plaintiffs lack a legal right to sue the FDA over its regulation of the abortion drug mifepristone in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine .

Good news for today, but I assume the same group will dig up someone with standing to do this all over again.

The standing decision seems to rule out anyone having standing. The Court suggests people with standing would be people who prescribe mifepristone or people who take it. But people who could prescribe it aren’t compelled to, and people who take it need not take it. So it’s hard to see how even those people could be harmed.

Yeah, it is actually a fairly elegant way to kick this can down the road (hopefully far enough to make people give up).

They might be able to “find” someone who has been prescribed that had side effects warranting the drug to be pulled, or someone who prescribes it willing to sell out for everyone else, but that will likely be fairly dubious and easily attacked by the pharma companies with deep pockets who prescribe the drug.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. Someone out there took it and had terrible side effects.

Will still be a steep ask, people have terrible side effects with all drugs, they will have to prove it is beyond acceptable.

These people are not going to give up.

Here are the remaining cases awaiting a decision. This is a huge list to get through, with some very big cases left.

The list is in order of when the cases were argued.

U.S. v. Rahimi, No. 22-915 [Arg: 11.7.2023]

Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 [Arg: 11.29.2023]

Issue(s): (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124 [Arg: 12.4.2023]

Issue(s): Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

Moore v. U.S., No. 22-800 [Arg: 12.5.2023]

Issue(s): Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.

Campos-Chaves v. Garland, No. 22-674 [Arg: 1.8.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen’s request to rescind that order.

Office of the U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, No. 22-1238 [Arg: 1.9.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the appropriate remedy for the constitutional uniformity violation found by this court in Siegel v. Fitzgerald is to require the United States Trustee to grant retrospective refunds of the increased fees paid by debtors in U.S. Trustee districts during the period of disuniformity, or is instead either to deem sufficient the prospective remedy adopted by Congress or to require the collection of additional fees from a much smaller number of debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator districts.

Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899 [Arg: 1.10.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.

Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219 [Arg: 1.17.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22-1008 [Arg: 2.20.2024]

Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule — regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date — or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved.”

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 [Arg: 1.17.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A349 [Arg: 2.21.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22-277 [Arg: 2.26.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 22-555 [Arg: 2.26.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 [Arg: 2.28.2024]

Issue(s): Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.”

Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411 [Arg: 3.18.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.

Diaz v. U.S., No. 23-14 [Arg: 3.19.2024]

Issue(s): Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.

Gonzalez v. Trevino, No. 22-1025 [Arg: 3.20.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and (2) whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 22O141 [Arg: 3.20.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the court should deny the motion by Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado for entry of a proposed consent decree that would resolve this dispute over the United States’ claim as intervenors that New Mexico violated the Rio Grande Compact without the United States’ consent.

Erlinger v. U.S., No. 23-370 [Arg: 3.27.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, No. 23-50 [Arg: 4.15.2024]

Issue(s): Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.

Fischer v. U.S., No. 23-5572 [Arg: 4.16.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, No. 23-175 [Arg: 4.22.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Moyle v. U.S., No. 23-726 [Arg: 4.24.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.

Trump v. U.S., No. 23-939 [Arg: 4.25.2024]

Issue(s): Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Sure.

But the SCOTUS decision – and I think what Jon is suggesting here – is that antiabortion zealots are going to need to find a different lever. It seems – at least for now – that SCOTUS taking up the constitutionality of adverse drug side effects might be beyond even Alito and Thomas’s reach.

I’m sure that anti-women’s rights groups have their lawyers already working on plans B, C, D, and E. But plan A doesn’t look like it’ll land.

So sick of these Christofascist conservative justices who never fail to destroy the justice system to pursue their naked ideology!

Me, looking around for their ruling on immunity for former presidents, now that it is too late for the justice system to do its job.

Yes, me too.

Yeah it took me a second to realize that was intended as sarcasm.