CV NEWS FEED // Every year, appellate cases make their way up to the Supreme Court for review. Americans are especially anxious to learn about the cases currently being decided by the Supreme Court after seeing the massive impact of recent decisions like the striking down of Roe v. Wade and the overturning of affirmative action.
For the 2023 session, some high-profile cases – such as Trump v. Anderson – have already been ruled on. Here’s CatholicVote’s list of the most important cases and opinions from the 2023 SCOTUS docket that have yet to be decided.
First: an explainer on Trump v. Anderson
Trump v. Anderson covered the 2020 election and the events of January 6, 2021.
Groups from Colorado, both Democratic and Republican, tried to prevent Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 presidential ballot.
The plaintiffs (“Anderson”) alleged that Trump’s relationship with January 6 disqualified him from appearing on the ballot. The initial court denied the petition, however, the Supreme Court of Colorado reversed in part the lower court’s ruling and supported Trump being disqualified as a 2024 presidential contender.
The U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not Trump’s alleged involvement in January 6 prevented him from seeking reelection.
The high court reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court on March 4, clearing Trump’s name and allowing him to appear on the Centennial State’s presidential ballot.
Moyle v. United States
Following the overturning of Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson, the Biden administration filed Moyle v. U.S. to challenge an Idaho pro-life law protecting patients and unborn children.
The law protects unborn babies from abortions and criminalizes abortion practices unless medically necessary (in cases of medical emergency) to save the life of the mother or in reported cases of rape and incest of minors.
The Department of Justice claimed the state code violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Biden’s legal team also claimed that hospitals in Idaho receiving Medicare funding must follow EMTALA before the state law.
The case begs the question as to whether or not Federal laws and grants can force citizens to break state laws. Moye v. U.S. also asks the Supreme Court to define the terms of medical crises and standards of care, clarifying when abortions can be performed in Idaho.
The Court’s ruling is pending.
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM)
In another abortion-related case, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court must consider whether the commonly prescribed abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol are safe, as well as the AHM’s standing to sue over the FDA’s highly controversial fast-tracked approval of the drug for mass distribution.
The abortion-inducing drugs in question were previously legally restricted. The FDA’s initial approval of the drugs is a subject of heated debate, with pro-life scientists and political commentators arguing they pose a serious danger to women.
The FDA under the Biden administration approved mifepristone for widespread distribution in pharmacies shortly before the Supreme Court struck down Roe.
The AHM filed suit along with other anti-abortion groups over the distribution of mifepristone by Danco.
The case seeks to answer whether or not the FDA’s approval of the drug’s commercial distribution was capricious and arbitrary rather than based on clinical considerations and safety.
A pro-life ruling on FDA vs. AHM could drastically reduce the number of abortions conducted via telehealth and prescription medication as well as the medications approved for early-term abortions. Patients could potentially need to see doctors in person to obtain mifepristone, instead of receiving the pill through a prescription filled by a pharmacy.
The Court’s ruling is pending.
Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton
Moody v. NetChoice challenges the State of Florida’s right to regulate Big Tech companies and keep them from de-platforming or otherwise restricting conservatives on social media. Oyez covered the case and stated that Florida enacted a law called S.B. 7072 “to address what it perceives as bias and censorship by large social media platforms against conservative voices.”
NetChoice, which represents Big Tech platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Google, filed an injunction against the State of Florida’s effort to stop NetChoice from restricting political and cultural content it disliked.
This case questions whether state governments can participate in the regulation of Big Tech social media practices and if such participation violates the First Amendment. This case could potentially impact how states interact with Big Tech companies and how giant social media companies may use their algorithms and disseminate information in the future.
The Court’s ruling is pending.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
The NRA filed suit against Vullo, who “issued guidance and statements encouraging banks and insurers to assess and potentially end their affiliations with gun promotion organizations like the NRA.” As a result, insurance firms and banks cut ties with the NRA.
The NRA asserted that Vullo, a government actor, violated the organization’s First Amendment rights and right to equal protection. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the NRA failed to show the coercive nature of Vullo’s involvement.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether or not Vullo’s involvement in businesses and insurance firms cutting ties with the NRA constituted a coercive violation of the NRA’s First Amendment rights.
Persuasion by government actors is legal, but coercion is not. Regulatory parties are not allowed to threaten or coerce any party that they may be conducting business with simply because regulators disagree with the business party’s viewpoints.
The Supreme Court decided in favor of the NRA on May 30. The high court’s decision can be found here.
Fischer v. United States
Former police officer Joseph Fischer filed this case against the U.S. after being indicted alongside others over his involvement in the events of January 6, 2021.
According to Oyez, Fischer and the other January 6 defendants were charged with
felony offenses of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, and misdemeanor offenses of disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and in restricted grounds, involving the intent to disrupt congressional sessions and government functions.
Fischer was charged with obstruction to an official proceeding, which he challenged. Initially, a district court ruled in favor of Fischer. The Biden DOJ then appealed that decision, and the case was overturned. Fischer then applied for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The high court agreed to hear his case.
The case asks: “Does 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?”
The Supreme Court’s decision of this case impacts how the DOJ interprets the law and the way in which it prosecutes Americans due to legal interpretations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the meaning of “obstructive conduct” as well as “investigations” and “evidence.”
The Court’s ruling is pending.
