FOLLOW US

The cases are Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo et al., case number 22-451, and Relentless Inc. et al. v. Department of Commerce et al., case number 22-1219.

Presidential Immunity

Former president Donald Trump has asked the justices to grant him absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution related to his alleged attempts to pressure state lawmakers and organize alternative slates of electors to change the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Trump contends the Constitution's text and the country's two centuries of history prove presidents were never meant to face criminal prosecution for their official acts. Among other arguments, he claims the impeachment clause provides the sole avenue to punish presidents for their acts, and that only after a president is impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and convicted by the U.S. Senate, can they be criminally charged.

Meanwhile, special counsel John L. "Jack" Smith counters that the Constitution's framers, who lived under the rule of British monarchs, never intended to immunize presidents for allegedly criminal acts. And even if the nation's top executive is entitled to some level of immunity, it should only apply to the office's core responsibilities, not private acts like the ones Trump is accused of, Smith said.

At oral arguments in April, a majority of the court seemed to agree presidents are entitled to limited, not absolute, immunity, but the justices divided on where to draw the line between protected and unprotected acts.

The case is Trump v. United States, case number 23-939.

Abortion

A pair of consolidated disputes has put the Supreme Court in a position to decide how much access individuals will have to abortion medication and emergency abortion care.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Danco Laboratories LLC have asked the justices to reinstate two post-approval FDA actions that eased restrictions on popular abortion drug mifepristone by allowing non-physicians to prescribe the drug and enabling providers to mail it to patients.

The FDA and Danco, maker of Mifeprex, the brand name of mifepristone, argue a court order rolling back the actions is improper for several reasons, including because the group that obtained it, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, has no standing to challenge the agency's decisions. The FDA additionally claims it did not arbitrarily make the post-approval changes, but instead made them after an extensive review process, and that the court order rolling them back is too broad.