As the highest judicial body in the country, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction extends over all Federal, State, and Military courts. Its rulings have mandatory authority, setting precedents and legal standards that significantly impact society and citizen’s lives.
What’s legal today could be outlawed tomorrow, and monitoring the Supreme Court’s actions is essential to staying on the right side of the law. An in-depth understanding of each Justice’s reasonings is equally important, as those arguments are more likely to be accepted in future rulings.
Overview of Recent Supreme Court Rulings
The Supreme Court hears cases related to Constitutional rights, covering a broad spectrum of issues such as child support, individual freedoms, and limiting the abuse of democratic processes.
Latest Supreme Court Rulings
While not one of the most recent cases, the most talked about Supreme Court action in recent memory was the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The decision did not outright criminalize abortion but gave individual states the final say regarding reproductive rights.
As a result, 14 states completely ban abortion, and 26 bans it after a certain point in the pregnancy. The issue is a pivotal talking point in the 2024 presidential race. President Joe Biden promises to reinstate Roe v. Wade, while former President Donald Trump toes the line in an appeal to moderate voters.
The Supreme Court more directly impacted the election on July 1st with its decision to delay the trial against Donald Trump. The indictment alleges that the former president used illegal means to interfere with the 2020 election results after his loss.
The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it does allow Trump to remain in the race. If elected, Trump would gain the power to appoint a favorable attorney general for his case or pardon himself.
Another July ruling in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC defended social media companies’ right to curate the content in their spaces. The court returned the case to lower courts and heavily delayed Florida and Texas’ efforts to control platforms they deemed politically biased.
In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court sided against Federal agencies. A North Dakota truck stop wanted to challenge a regulation requiring merchants to pay banks for debit card transactions.
The ruling went against the regulation, limiting challenges to a six-year deadline after its creation. The Justices decided that the deadline only went into effect when Corner Post opened for business, as before that, it had no stake against the regulation.
Key Areas Affected by Recent and Upcoming Rulings
Supreme Court decisions impact various legal areas, requiring professionals to adjust to changing legal landscapes.
Family Law
The US Supreme Court isn’t typically involved in family law; however, a major issue has been shifting the dynamic: gender-affirming care.
Debates over transgender bathrooms and participation in sporting events are nothing new. However, the discussion has shifted toward the ethicality of providing gender-affirming care to minors and the parents’ right to make such a drastic decision.
Tennessee has joined several other states in blocking transgender care options like puberty blockers, testosterone therapy, hormone treatments, and gender reassignment surgery. The ban is being challenged by several teens undergoing such procedures, as well as their parents and doctors.
One of the arguments for lifting the ban is to protect a parent’s “fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children.” The ruling will have a considerable effect on transgender care in Republican-led states and set a legal precedent for the limit on a parent’s medical rights over their children.
Individual Rights and Incorporation
The numerous school shootings and hate crimes have sparked heated and long-standing debates over gun control. The right to bear arms and defend against tyranny is outlined in the Second Amendment, but many argue the need for change in modern times.
In mid-June, the Supreme Court struck down the bump stock ban created by the Trump administration. Bump stocks allow machine gun-level firing rates, enabling a Las Vegas gunman to fire over 1,000 rounds into a country music festival in 11 minutes.
The ruling stated that the Trump Administration had overstepped its powers by introducing the restrictions through regulations instead of legislation.
This decision comes a year after the Bruen decision requiring governments to consider the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” rather than firearm law’s effects on public safety. These policies further incorporate the Second Amendment into states attempting to enforce stricter gun control.
Criminal Law and Procedure
The Trump election subversion case set one of the most consequential precedents for presidential criminal investigations. The Supreme Court ruled that past, present, and future presidents have immunity from prosecution when utilizing their core constitutional powers.
The decision argued that an “independent executive” like the president must be willing to take unpopular action for the good of the nation. This reasoning is similar to protecting police officers who must make hard decisions on the job.
One worry is whether these allowances apply to people in other stressful government positions. How much can be forgiven or dismissed under the hidden guise that an official’s actions are made for the public good?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor denigrated the decision by saying, “Under the majority’s rule, a president’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.”
The Supreme Court has also repeatedly been asked to interpret provisions of the First Step Act, a 2018 criminal reform bill that created a “rehabilitation credit” system to facilitate a criminal’s early release.
Pulsifer v. United States recently ruled that even low-level drug dealers are not eligible for the First Step Act benefits. The problem was with the ambiguous use of the word “and” in what conditions disqualified convicted drug traffickers.
Basically, people were confused about whether someone had to meet all three disqualifying factors or just one. The Supreme Court decided that the wording “creates an eligibility checklist and demands that the defendant satisfy every one of its conditions.”
The ruling has far-reaching implications. The automatic requirement that convicts clear the entire checklist will disqualify thousands from future reform acts.
Business and Corporate Law
The Chevron decision, a policy allowing federal agencies to use common-sense privileges in vague situations, was overturned last month. Opponents of the original decision argued that it gave judicial power to government employees with questionable impartiality.
Overturning this landmark case significantly weakens federal agencies’ ability to regulate businesses. This decision came right after the Supreme Court also weakened the SEC’s power to fight corporate fraud.
The Chevron decision frequently appears in lower courts when businesses don’t want to pay for government-mandated processes. This decision significantly harms environmental policies, reducing the arguments available in these cases.
Ultimately, this repeal means the government cannot reliably force businesses to pay for recording animal capture rates or tracking emissions.
Civil Rights and Liberties
The overturning of Roe v. Wade was a heavy blow for those in favor of pro-choice policies. There was a comparatively small but significant victory for these groups in the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling to preserve access to mifepristone.
Abortion opponents attempted to sue the FDA over the drug’s approval. A ruling in their favor would have heavily restricted mifepristone access even in states that continued to legalize abortion in the post-Roe v. Wade era.
The Supreme Court case focused on the opponents of mifepristone’s standing. The justices asked the challenging doctors to identify a doctor who faces imminent harm from the FDA’s decision to approve and ease access to the drug.
The final ruling states that doctors are not required to prescribe mifepristone if it goes against their moral principles but must treat those who face complications due to mifepristone. This decision creates a line between medical practitioners’ right to abstain from prescribing or performing treatments they disagree with and their right to refuse necessary treatment.
Broader Implications of Supreme Court Decisions
Supreme Court rulings can open up previously “impossible” cases and provide both sides with increased options. Access to detailed court records is crucial for legal professionals and researchers to understand the full context and implications of these decisions.
Impact on Existing Laws and Future Legislation
By nature, the Supreme Court makes decisions on problems with significant implications. It can remove existing laws and governmental powers and force legislative decisions.
Legal professionals must quickly update themselves to avoid using arguments or precedents that the latest Supreme Court decision has invalidated. These new precedents, like the word ‘and’ in the First Step Act, guide future legislative actions and judicial interpretations.
Examining the recent rulings and analyzing the trickle-down effect they bring will provide the insight necessary to perform.
Affected Parties
Supreme Court decisions impact parties beyond those immediately involved in the case. The rulings have aftershocks that can shake up individuals, government agencies, and multi-billion-dollar industries.
For example, the lifted ban on bump stocks affects more than those who can use the attachment. It raises the lethality of semiautomatic rifles and makes society less safe for everyone.
The Role of Lawyers in Adapting to New Legal Standards
Lawyers play a critical role in interpreting and applying Supreme Court rulings. Adapting to new legal standards requires continued education and analysis of each decision’s implications.
With each ruling, legal professionals must evaluate whether long-standing practices remain valid or require adjustment. This is especially true for criminal defense attorneys, who must track evolving interpretations of constitutional protections, sentencing laws, and presidential immunity. Adapting strategies in light of these landmark decisions is essential to providing effective representation and upholding justice in a shifting legal landscape.
Adapting Legal Strategies
With every Supreme Court ruling, lawyers must consider how it affects their long-standing prejudices and legal strategies. Will what they’ve been doing continue to work, or are there new arguments that change the status quo?
Continuing Legal Education
Just like in medicine, ongoing education is crucial for legal professionals to keep up with an evolving legal and moral landscape. Legal journals, professional seminars, and Supreme Court transcripts provide essential sources and insights into the Justices’ decisions.
The public side of the Supreme Court focuses on huge societal issues like abortion, gun control, and federal regulation. However, it handles much more than the landmark cases everyone sees on the news.
Supreme Court rulings contribute greatly to shaping US law, and keeping up with every decision is taxing but necessary. Legal professionals must know how each case shakes up the legal landscape and figure out how to adapt their practice.