Abortion and Gun Rights Top Busy Week for Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in at least two blockbuster cases last week. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Court considered the constitutionality of a New York gun law. Based on oral arguments, it appeared that a majority of the Court could be persuaded that the law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

The issues in United States v. Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson are just as controversial, as they involve legal challenges to Texas’s restrictive abortion law. The Court, which agreed to hear the cases on an accelerated schedule, expressed significant concerns about S.B. 8, which prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and delegates the exclusive power to enforce the law to private individuals rather than state officials.

Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court:

United States v. Texas: A federal district court temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Texas abortion law S.B. 8, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the lower court’s injunction. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to vacate the stay, which the Supreme Court elected to treat as a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment. The question before the Court is: “Whether the United States may bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit Texas Senate Bill 8 from being enforced.”

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson: S.B. 8 delegates enforcement to the general public via civil actions that “any person” can file in Texas state court. Petitioners, Texas abortion providers and individuals and organizations that support abortion patients, brought suit in federal court against, among others, the clerks and judges of the courts where enforcement actions can be brought and the Texas attorney general. The district court denied Respondents’ motions to dismiss on standing and sovereign-immunity grounds. The question before the Supreme Court is “whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen: A 108-year-old New York law requires that an applicant for a license to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home show that “proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.” The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) and two individuals sued New York state, arguing that the law violates the Second Amendment because it prevents them from having the unrestricted ability to carry a firearm anywhere in public. The specific issue before the Court is: “Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Houston Community College System v. Wilson: The case involves when elected bodies can censure their members. Upon being censured by the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College System, Petitioner Wilson brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the censure violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. A U.S. district court judge dismissed the suit. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that HCC’s censure of one of its members for violating its bylaws was an unlawful restriction on his free speech rights. The justices have agreed to decide: “Does the First Amendment restrict the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech?

Badgerow v. Walters: The case involves a jurisdictional question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The issue before the Court is: “Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.”