Rep. Rick Larsen on recent Supreme Court opinions

||| FROM THE OFFICE OF REP. RICK LARSEN |||

In the last few weeks, the Supreme Court has delivered its opinions on some important cases for the 2023-2024 term. Today, I hope to cut through the noise of the headlines and share a quick rundown on how these cases may impact the daily lives of people like us, Lin.

On environmental protections: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

• This case reversed one of our nation’s most cited legal precedents, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, and issued a devastating blow to environmental protections. This decision makes vulnerable well-established regulatory authorities on an array of issues from abortion pills to public safety.

On reproductive freedom: Moyle v. United States, and Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

• The Court dismissed Moyle as “improvidently granted,” which means it should have never been taken up in the first place. With this decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Idaho court’s decision and allowed emergency abortions in Idaho. But, this was not a victory for reproductive rights – it leaves the door open to more challenges to reproductive rights in the future. We urgently need to codify Roe in Congress to prevent that from happening.
• Through Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, The Court rejected a lawsuit against the FDA and preserved access to the legal and safe abortion medication, mifepristone. Similar to the decision in Moyle: this will not stop challenges to reproductive freedom, and we must continue to work to codify Roe for true protections.

On preventing gun violence: Garland v. Cargill

• The Court reversed a Trump-Era ban on gun bump stocks. Trump passed a gun bump stock ban after one of the deadliest shootings in the United States, and the reversal of this ban is detrimental to the safety of all.

On housing insecurity: Grants Pass v. Johnson

• The Court sided with a small Oregon town, Grants Pass, and ruled that it is legal to impose civil punishments on homeless people even when there are no shelters available. The Court argued that these vicious rules targeting vulnerable populations did not go against the Eighth Amendment’s protections from “cruel and unusual punishment.” This is an extremely dangerous precedent to set and will have deadly consequences for those facing housing insecurity across the United States if more cities opt for restrictive camping rules.

On Presidential immunity: Trump v. United States

• The Court held that former President Donald Trump is largely protected from prosecution, issuing a significant ruling on presidential power. This decision will likely require the trial regarding his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results be postponed until after the upcoming November election. If the trial is delayed and Mr. Trump wins the election, he might direct the Justice Department to dismiss the charges.

From the Majority Opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts:

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office.”

These decisions have raised the stakes for the 2024 Election in a big way. It is on us to elect leaders who will codify Roe, protect our environment, prevent gun violence, and stand up for our democracy.