Over the last two years, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has made significant rulings, including ending affirmative action in higher education, overturning Roe v. Wade, and weakening environmental protections. This trend appears to continue as the court is set to make decisions that could further strip rights and protections from Americans, empower corporate interests, and challenge the rule of law.
In 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case saw the Supreme Court eliminate the constitutional right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. This allowed states to impose bans on reproductive care, significantly affecting women's health across the nation. This term, two cases addressing abortion access were heard by the court.
The first case is FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, where anti-abortion advocates challenged the FDA's approval of mifepristone in 2000. The unanimous court ruled that these advocates lacked standing to sue but left open pathways for future challenges regarding medication abortion access.
The second case is Idaho v. U.S., which examines whether a federal law protecting emergency abortion care overrides state-level abortion bans like Idaho’s near-total ban. A ruling favoring Idaho could undermine federal supremacy and restrict emergency medical care for pregnant women.
Regarding presidential immunity and accountability related to January 6 insurrection events, two pivotal cases are under consideration: Trump v. U.S., which addresses former President Trump's potential claims of presidential immunity in relation to his alleged actions during the Capitol attack; and Fischer v. United States, which involves statutory interpretations that could affect convictions of January 6 rioters and potentially reduce election interference charges against Trump.
On gun violence prevention, Rahimi v. United States will determine the constitutionality of a long-standing gun violence prevention law aimed at protecting domestic violence survivors—a law now questioned due to recent shifts in legal precedents established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Garland v. Cargill challenges a Trump-era rule banning bump stocks following their use in mass shootings like Las Vegas in 2017—questioning what constitutes a "machine gun" under current laws.
Several cases this term could also limit public agencies' abilities to regulate corporations effectively:
- Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo challenge the Chevron doctrine.
- SEC v. Jarkesy questions if agencies can directly enforce regulations when common law statutes exist.
- Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve examines facial challenges beyond existing statute limitations.
- Ohio v EPA concerns an EPA regulation limiting smog pollution during ongoing litigation.
First Amendment issues are also prominent with Murthy v Missouri challenging government communications with social media platforms on public safety grounds; and NetChoice cases questioning state authority over content moderation practices on these platforms versus private actors’ rights under free speech principles.
Additionally, City of Grants Pass v Johnson addresses whether making homelessness itself illegal within city limits is constitutional—a decision that could redefine status crimes across America.
These upcoming decisions highlight critical debates about judicial power dynamics amid ethical controversies surrounding some justices’ impartiality perceptions and gift acceptances from interest groups.
To address these growing concerns over judicial conduct and restore trust in this institution as a fair arbiter of justice while maintaining its coequal status within government branches—calls for substantive reforms including term limits for justices, enforceable ethical codes or mechanisms curbing judge shopping have gained momentum among various advocacy groups urging Congressional action towards judicial accountability improvements urgently needed today more than ever before.
