The Supreme Court still has a large number of major cases to decide, and it only has a few days left to do so.
ADRIAN FLORIDO, HOST:
The Supreme Court has a large number of major cases to decide and only a few days left to do so. Traditionally, the High Court usually finishes its work by the end of June, but it may need more time this year. NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson has been following the case, and she joins me now to talk more. Welcome, Carrie.
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Hello, Adrian.
FLORIDA: Hey. So it’s that time of year when Supreme Court watchers tend to wait for decisions. So what are you watching?
JOHNSON: Well, I’ve been watching and waiting since April for the Supreme Court to decide a very big question: whether Donald Trump deserves immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the White House in the days before and after the storming of the U.S. Capitol three years ago.
As you know, I have booked my schedule this year for a trial of Donald Trump in Washington, DC. But that case, which involves Trump’s efforts to cling to power in 2020, has been pending for months. The Supreme Court could have acted as early as December. He does not have. Instead, that case was postponed months later, with proceedings scheduled for late April, and the chances of a trial opening before the election now appear quite low. The Supreme Court announced that its decisions would be issued again on Wednesday. It would be a day before the first debate between Joe Biden and Trump.
FLORIDA: This Trump case isn’t the only one that revolves around the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. What else are the judges thinking about about this event?
JOHNSON: The justices are considering how the Justice Department used an obstruction law. Congress passed this law after the Enron scandal more than 20 years ago. But lawyers for many of the people who broke into the Capitol say that shouldn’t apply to them because their cases didn’t involve efforts to destroy evidence or documents like the Enron cases did . Prosecutors have used this obstruction law in approximately 350 cases related to January 6. So, depending on the judges’ decision, this could upend dozens of cases and even lead to some people being released from prison.
It is important to note that two of the four charges against Donald Trump in Washington, DC, relate to this obstruction law. A decision here could therefore also make half of the proceedings against him disappear.
FLORIDO: Carrie, the appropriate role of the federal government is a campaign issue this summer. But it’s also a question before the Supreme Court in a case you covered. What is at stake here?
JOHNSON: Yeah. This is perhaps the most important case in administrative law in more than a generation. Currently, federal agencies have a lot of power to write environmental rules and regulate businesses on health and safety issues. When Congress passes a law, but there may be gaps or uncertainties, the current system allows regulators to step in and clarify. But big business interests have challenged this status quo. They want to take power away from federal regulators and put it in the hands of federal judges. The government lawyer handling the case called the idea a convulsive shock to the current system, one that would lead to waves of lawsuits and hamper the work of federal agencies. But in oral arguments this year, conservative justices appear likely to abandon that precedent or at least impose very severe limits on it.
FLORIDO: Finally, Carrie, the judges are dealing with a bunch of social issues, leaving them until the final days, as they often do. What’s on file there?
JOHNSON: There’s another case where abortion is the focus. After the Supreme Court struck down the right to abortion a few years ago, the Biden administration said it would rely on emergency law. This law states that hospitals that receive federal funds must provide stabilization care to people whose lives or health are seriously threatened, and sometimes that type of care means abortion.
This particular case concerns Idaho, which has a law on the books that states that abortion is only possible when the mother’s life is at stake. The judges upheld the status quo when it comes to medication abortion and access to the drug mifepristone. But it’s unclear where they will rule on this Idaho law, and it could impact other states as well.
FLORIDO: I spoke with NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. Thanks, Carrie.
JOHNSON: With pleasure.
Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the terms of use and permissions pages on our website at www.npr.org for more information.
NPR transcripts are created on urgent deadlines by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio recording.
NPR News
