The presentation can last several minutes as the audience of spouses, staff, viewers and journalists assimilate what is read aloud. Often, the justice who wrote the main controversy also chooses to address the public, offering a fiery oral critique of the majority view. None of this is expected to happen this month. Now, armed guards provide 24-hour protection to judges’ homes, while protesters sometimes gather outside, and the president has signed legislation to strengthen security protection for judges and their families. Without grandeur and circumstance, an employee will push a button and views that change the outline of some of the most divisive social issues of the time, including abortions, gun rights, religious freedom and the environment – will simply be made public through Internet. By then, without reason to appear in public, many of the judges may have already left Washington. There are 18 cases remaining in office. The following are the main points of the court file:
Abortion
It was Judge Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving judge in the current court, who probably commissioned Conservative Judge Samuel Alito to write the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that could overthrow Roe v. Wade. The dispute concerns a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. The state is asking judges to take the giant step of overthrowing Roe, a crucial case decided in 1973 that establishes a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability, which most experts say now occurs around 23- 24 weeks of pregnancy. In an oral hearing, Mississippi Attorney General Scott Stewart told judges that Rowe and a subsequent 1992 ruling “haunted” the country. Mississippi law was once rejected as blatantly unconstitutional, even by a conservative appellate court. But much has changed since then, including the fact that in December judges allowed the six-week abortion ban in Texas to remain in force. Since then, the red states, revived by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, have been passing increasingly restrictive laws. Last month, for example, Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the “fertilization” stage and allowing citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman do the procedure. In the draft opinion, Alito said Roe “should be rejected”. If the five-member majority holds, it will eliminate almost the previous 50 years and change the landscape of women’s reproductive health in the future. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Votes may change during debates. Sometimes the views of the majority end up in agreements or even disagreements. Other judges could work on separate points of view at the same time, hoping to get votes from Alito’s draft or to weaken his opinion.
Second amendment
As the country grapples with armed violence, judges will decide how generally they want to rule on a case that could open a new chapter in constitutional challenges to gun safety laws. After oral debate last year, it appeared the Conservatives were ready to scrap a New York law – enacted more than a century ago – that limits gun control outside the home. Proponents of gun rights have been pushing for the court to clarify the scope of the second amendment for years. The effort was led by Thomas, who has previously described the Second Amendment as a “deprived right to this court”. But the whole landscape of the debate has changed in recent months. Since the judges began arguing, there have been mass shootings across the country, including the massacre of 19 students in Texas in Texas. Although the shootings do not directly involve the issue of clandestine transport, the country as a whole is now discussing gun safety laws.
Religious freedom
In addition to abortion and gun rights, the court is also considering cases that could allow more religion in public life. In December, they heard arguments about a Maine initiative that excludes certain religious schools from a tuition assistance program. The program allows parents living in rural areas without a school district to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools elsewhere. But it was difficult when some parents wanted to use the coupons to send their children to religious schools. The court could 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. Judges are also considering the case of Joe Kennedy, a former Washington state high school football coach at a public school who lost his job because he prayed in the 50-yard line after games. Kennedy told CNN that “every American should be able to have faith in the public and not worry about being fired for it.” “I think it’s important that we keep our promises – especially to God,” he said. But the school district said it suspended Kennedy to avoid the appearance that the school had adopted a particular faith, in violation of the Constitution’s founding clause. Liberal judges in court – Judges Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – made it clear in oral hearings that they were concerned that players might feel compelled by the school to pray. “I’ll just suggest,” Kagan said. is different or when they have no religion “.
Immigration
As political parties disagree on immigration, judges are examining several cases involving border disputes. In a key case, judges are battling whether the Biden administration can end a Trump-era border policy known as the “Stay in Mexico.” Lower courts have so far prevented Biden from ending politics. As part of an unprecedented program launched in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security may send some non-Mexican nationals who have returned to the United States back to Mexico – instead of holding them or releasing them to the United States – as immigration progresses. Critics call the policy inhumane and say it exposes asylum seekers to credible allegations in dangerous and miserable conditions. The case raises questions not only about immigration law, but also about the president’s control over politics and his diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.
Climate change
The judges also unexpectedly agreed to settle a case over the EPA’s power to regulate coal emissions from existing power plants, in a dispute that could cripple the Biden administration’s efforts to reduce emissions. It comes at a time when scientists are sounding the alarm about the accelerating rate of global warming. The court’s decision to intervene now concerned environmentalists because there are currently no rules. A lower court overturned a Trump-era rule in 2021, and the Biden administration’s EPA is currently working on a new rule. But the fact that there were enough votes to deal with the issue now seemed to some to be an aggressive subsidy, signaling that the court wants to limit the EPA’s reach even before a new rule is issued.
