Under normal circumstances, in the days leading up to the June verdict, the Supreme Court, after months of closed-door debate, finally emerges from behind the red curtain to release the most controversial cases of the period. Wearing their court uniforms and exhausted from the last push of work, the judges take their seats and read the majority opinion of its authors.
The handdown can take several minutes as the spouse, staff, spectators and the audience of the journalists digest what is being read aloud. Often, the justice that recorded the fundamental difference also chooses to address the audience, and offers strong verbal criticism of the majority opinion.
None of this is expected to happen this month.
Now, armed guards are guarding judges’ homes 24 hours a day, while protesters sometimes gather outside, and the president has signed legislation to increase the protection of judges and their families.
Without any fuss, an official will press a button and the views will be released only through the internet, changing the shape of the most divisive social issues of the time, including abortion, gun rights, religious freedom and the environment.
By then, no reason to appear in public, many judges have already fled Washington.
There are 18 cases left in the period. The highlights of the court doctorate are:
The controversy is related to the Mississippi law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. The state is urging judges to take a major step in reversing the rhetoric, a fundamental case that was decided in 1973, in which the constitutional right to abortion was established before the fetus became viable, according to most experts. It is now approximately 23-24 weeks of gestation.
In oral arguments, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the judges that Roe and the 1992 follow-up decision “disturbed” the country.
At one point, the Mississippi law was overturned as outright unconstitutional, even by a conservative-leaning appeals court. But much has changed since then, including the fact that judges in Texas allowed a six-week abortion ban in December. Since then, the red states, encouraged by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, have passed fast-moving laws. Last month, for example, the Republican Gov. Kevin State of Oklahoma signed into law a law that prohibits abortion from the “fertilization” stage and allows private citizens to sue anyone. Can help a woman get the procedure.
In his opinion on the draft, Alito said Roe “must be rejected.” If it gets a five-member majority, it will break the 50-year-old precedent and advance the women’s reproductive health scenario.
Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.
Votes may change during the debate. Sometimes the opinion of the majority turns into consensus or disagreement. Other judges can work on different opinions at the same time, hoping to vote on Alito’s draft or weaken their position.
As the country suffers from gun violence, judges will decide to what extent they want to rule on a broader issue that could open a new chapter in the constitutional challenges to gun protection laws.
After verbal arguments last year, conservatives seemed ready to repeal a New York law – enacted more than a century ago – that would ban the carrying of concealed weapons outside the home. Is. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. The effort is led by Thomas, who in the past called the Second Amendment an “undesirable right in this court.”
But in recent months, the whole landscape of debate has changed. Since the judges began their deliberations, there have been large-scale shootings across the country, including the massacre of 19 schoolchildren in Texas. Although the issue of hidden ammunition was not directly affected by the firing, the whole country is now debating gun safety laws.
In addition to abortion and gun rights, the court is also considering issues that could allow more religion in public life.
In December, he heard arguments about Maine’s move to exclude some religious schools from the tuition aid program. The program allows parents living in rural areas to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools. But the challenge came when some parents wanted to use vouchers to send their children to religious schools.
The court may insist that if a state provides vouchers for public and private education, it cannot exclude schools that teach the curriculum through the lens of faith.
“Every American should be able to trust the public and not worry about being fired,” Kennedy told CNN.
“I think it’s important to keep our promises – especially to God,” he said.
But the school district said it suspended Kennedy so that it would not appear that the school was affirming a particular belief in violation of the Establishment clause of the constitution.
Liberal judges of the court – Justice Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayir – made it clear in their oral arguments that they were concerned that the players were being forced to pray by the school.
“I’m just going to give some kind of advice,” Kagan said. The kind of oppression they inflict when they don’t want to, when their religion is different or when they have no religion. “
As political circles debate immigration, judges are considering a number of cases involving border disputes.
In a landmark case, the judges are debating whether the Biden administration can overturn the Trump-era border policy called “Stay in Mexico.” The lower courts have so far barred Biden from ending the policy.
Under an unprecedented program launched in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security could send some non-Mexican citizens back to Mexico who entered the United States – instead of detaining them or releasing them in the United States. – While their immigration process was underway. Critics call the policy inhumane and say it exposes asylum seekers in dangerous and degrading circumstances with credible claims. The case raises questions about not only immigration law but also the president’s control over policy and his diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.
The judges also agreed to rule on a case involving the EPA’s authority to manage carbon emissions from unexpectedly existing power plants, in a dispute that could cripple the Biden administration’s efforts to reduce emissions. ۔ This comes at a time when scientists are sounding the alarm about the rapid onset of global warming.
Environmentalists are now concerned about the court’s decision because there are currently no rules. A lower court overturned the Trump-era rule in 2021, and the Biden administration’s EPA is currently working on a new one.
But the fact that there were now enough votes to raise the issue, hitting some as an aggressive grant, indicates that limiting the jurisdiction of the EPA even before a new rule on court books is introduced. Wants