The Supreme Court still has a number of major cases to decide, with only a few days remaining.
ADRIAN FLORIDO, HOST:
The Supreme Court has a slew of major cases to decide and only a few days left. By tradition, the high court usually completes its work by the end of June, but this year it may take more time. NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson has been following the docket, and now she joins me to talk more about it. Welcome, Carrie.
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Hi, Adrian.
Florido: Hey. So this time of year, Supreme Court watchers tend to be on pins and needles awaiting the verdict. So what are you looking at?
JOHNSON: Well, since April, I’ve been watching and waiting for the Supreme Court to decide a very big question – whether Donald Trump should be granted immunity from criminal prosecution because of some of his actions in the White House. After the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
As you know, I had a trial scheduled for Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. this year, but the case involving Trump’s attempt to retain power in 2020 has been on hold for months. The Supreme Court could have acted in December. It didn’t. Instead, the case came to trial several months later, with arguments originally scheduled for late April, and the likelihood of starting before the election now looks rather low. The Supreme Court announced it would rule again on Wednesday. That will be the day before the first debate between Joe Biden and Trump.
Florido: The Trump case is not the only one related to the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
JOHNSON: The justices are considering how the Justice Department might use the obstruction of justice charge. Congress passed the law more than two decades ago in the wake of the Enron scandal. But attorneys for many of those who breached the Capitol say the rule does not apply to them because their cases did not involve the destruction of evidence or documents, as in Anlon’s case. Prosecutors have used the obstruction-of-justice law in about 350 cases related to the events of Jan. 6. So depending on how judges rule, it could overturn dozens of cases and even lead to some people being released from jail.
Notably, two of the four charges Donald Trump faces in Washington, D.C., relate to this obstruction of justice crime. Therefore, the decision here also has the potential to eliminate half of the cases against him.
FLORIDO: Carrie, the appropriate role of the federal government is an issue on the campaign trail this summer. But this is also an issue facing the Supreme Court that you reported on. What’s at stake there?
Johnson: Yes. This may be the most important case in administrative law in more than a generation. Currently, federal agencies have broad authority to set environmental rules and regulate corporate health and safety. When Congress passes a law, but there may be some gaps or uncertainty, the current system allows regulators to step in and clarify. But big business interests challenge this status quo. They want to strip power from federal regulators and give it to federal judges. Government lawyers in the case called the idea a huge blow to the current system that would trigger a wave of lawsuits and disrupt the work of federal agencies. But during oral arguments this year, it seemed likely that conservative justices would overturn that precedent, or at least impose some very tight limits on it.
FLORIDO: Finally, Carrie, the judges are confronting a host of social issues and, as they often do, are leaving them to the final days. What’s on the docket?
Johnson: There’s another case that centers on abortion. After the Supreme Court struck down abortion rights several years ago, the Biden administration said it would rely on emergency laws. The law requires hospitals that receive federal funds to provide stable care to people whose life or health is seriously threatened, and sometimes that care means abortion.
This particular case involves Idaho, which has a law that says abortion can only be done when the mother’s life is threatened. Judges this term have upheld the status quo on medical abortion and the drug mifepristone. But it’s unclear how they will view the law in Idaho, and it could affect other states as well.
FLORIDO: I’ve been talking to NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. Thanks, Carrie.
Johnson: It’s an honor.
Copyright © 2024 NPR. all rights reserved. Please visit our Terms of Use and Permissions page at www.npr.org for more information.
NPR transcripts are created by NPR contractors under emergency deadlines. This article may not be in 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 transcript.
