scotus news
Written by Amy Howe
October 7, 2024
4:58 p.m.
The court began its 2024-2025 term Monday by issuing orders and hearing oral arguments in two cases. (William Hennessy)
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected more than 1,000 additional review requests, after allowing 15 cases in a “long conference” of the justices last week. Among the notable actions in the 50-page list of orders announced Monday morning are the denial of the Biden administration’s request to send Texas’ emergency abortion dispute back to lower courts and the denial of a challenge by the Biden administration. There was a rejection. The company, formerly known as Twitter, was subject to a confidentiality order obtained by Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding communications by former President Donald Trump.
The justices rejected a request by the Biden administration to send the emergency medical and labor law dispute back to a lower court for reconsideration. That federal law requires emergency rooms in Medicare-funded hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to patients who arrive with a serious life- or health-threatening emergency. The law, according to the Biden administration, would override state laws that directly conflict with EMTALA’s requirements, such as laws restricting abortion care. The court took up a series of similar cases in Idaho in June, but did not reach a final ruling on the federal law.
The court’s denial Monday left the lower court’s ruling in place in Texas, but the central issue in the case remains unresolved nationwide.
The lawsuit challenges the state of Texas and two health care agencies to respond to Department of Health and Human Services guidance reminding hospitals that EMTALA can, in some cases, require hospitals to perform abortions to save a pregnant woman’s life or prevent serious harm. It started as a group protest. Her health even though state law prohibits abortion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed, barring the federal government from enforcing the guidelines on Texas.
In late June, after the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the two Idaho cases, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger asked the justices to send the Texas case back for new consideration. Ta. She cited not only the Idaho case, but also the challenger’s suggestion that there is no conflict between EMTALA and Texas law, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in a case surrounding medication abortion, saying, “This “No medical group that challenges the law may demand that a pregnancy be terminated against conscience”, a member of Congress said. But the judges dismissed Preloger’s suit without explanation.
The court asked the Biden administration for its opinion on the following four matters:
Alabama v. California – An effort by 19 Republican-led states to block lawsuits brought against oil and gas companies by five other states. The lawsuit alleges that oil and gas companies knew their products were contributing to climate change, but instead misled the public about the causes of climate change. and fossil fuel risks. Landau v. Louisiana Department of Corrections – Whether plaintiffs can sue government officials in their private rather than official capacities for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act. The lawsuit was filed by a devout Rastafarian who had not cut his hair for nearly 20 years as part of his religious practice. When he was transferred to his new prison, he gave the guard a copy of a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found Louisiana’s policy banning Rastafarian inmates from wearing dreadlocks unconstitutional. The guards threw the copies in the trash and, at the direction of the warden, forcibly restrained him and shaved his head. He is now seeking to hold prison officials personally liable for damages. M&K Employee Solutions vs. IAM Pension Trustee – How to Calculate The Employee Retirement Income Security Act directive to calculate “withdrawal liability” when an employer withdraws from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan “At the end of the term.” Mulready v. Pharmaceutical Care Management – Whether the Federal Employees Retirement Income Security Act preempts Oklahoma law regulating pharmacy benefit managers.
Other cases that judges have refused to review include:
Company X v. United States – First Amendment challenge to a secrecy order that prohibited Twitter from notifying Mr. Trump or his agents about warrants seeking private communications sent and received by the former president while he was president. Allegation. Moylan v. Guerrero – Guam law relied upon by the territory’s Supreme Court to implicitly repeal a 1990 law that largely banned abortion in Guam, giving the court the power to enter a declaratory judgment Does this violate the separation of powers? No to E, San Francisco Citizens Against the Affordable Housing Act v. Chiu – San Francisco ordinance requiring (among other things) political committees that spend money in city elections to disclose both their major donors and if so. A challenge to the constitutionality of. Any of these contributors is a committee and is a contributor to that committee. Campbell v. Caress – Whether the one-year window for state inmates to file a federal petition for post-conviction relief stops when the inmate requests DNA testing. Heil v. Michigan – Whether the 1970 Michigan constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of public funds for private schools violates the U.S. Constitution. The challengers, who are parents of children attending private religious schools in Michigan, argued that a provision in the state constitution prohibits religious persons and organizations in Michigan from seeking relief, including public funds. They argued that it violated the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. Participate in state legislatures on the same terms as other citizens. Mendoza v. Lumpkin – The case of Moises Sandoval Mendoza, a Mexican national who was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to death for the 2004 murder of Rachel O’Neal Tolleson in Texas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year rejected Mendoza’s request for post-conviction federal relief. Al-Bakhrul v. United States – One of the judges who ruled on the prisoner’s appeal should throw out the verdict in a case involving a Yemeni man who was an assistant to Osama bin Laden, who is currently imprisoned in the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay. Was it or not? Because he represented the federal government in a prisoner’s pretrial challenge to prosecution by a military commission. (Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh recused themselves from the case.)
This article was originally published on How on the Court.