Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday was divided over whether a federal law requiring hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” in an emergency overrides an Idaho law that bars most abortions. The court’s ruling could affect health care in emergency rooms in the 22 states that have imposed restrictions on abortions, particularly in the six states that – like Idaho – lack exemptions to the general ban to protect the health of the mother. The federal law at the center of the case is known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Passed in 1986 ..read more

Share Monday’s argument in Smith v. Spizziri was this month’s case under the Federal Arbitration Act. This one explores what a trial court can do when it refers a pending suit to arbitration. Section 3 of the FAA says that if the court refers the case to arbitration, it “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” The question is whether the trial court, instead of staying the action, can go ahead and dismiss it entirely. The argument included a fair amount of questioning about the text. For example, early in Daniel Geyser’s ar ..read more

Share Less than a month after the justices heard oral arguments in a case seeking to roll back access to one of the drugs used in medication abortions, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in another case involving abortion. At issue in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States is whether emergency rooms in Idaho can provide abortions to pregnant women in an emergency. The Biden administration contends that a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act can in some narrow circumstances trump a state law that criminalizes most abortions in the s ..read more

Share Though still far behind the number of cases granted for the next term this time last year, the court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2024-2025 term. The justices agreed to weigh in on a challenge to a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating so-called “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that virtually anyone can assemble from parts, often purchased in a kit. Garland v. VanDerStok was one of two cases granted on Monday on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The dispute over the “ghost guns” ru ..read more

Share Union organizing efforts at Starbucks probably are the most protracted labor dispute of the decade, and on Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear argument in a closely watched case arising from the company’s firing of seven employees at a Memphis branch. The workers, known as the Memphis 7, said they were fired in retaliation for trying to unionize. The union, Starbucks Workers United, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, which went to federal court and won a preliminary injunction. Now, to be clear, the legal issue in this case has little to do with the propriety of ..read more

Share The justices will hear oral argument in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson and Smith v. Spizzirri this morning. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read: Supreme Court weighs Oregon city’s power to punish the homeless (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News) The miscarriage was inevitable. Could she have had an ER abortion? Supreme Court to decide (Maureen Groppe, USA Today) Homelessness case before US supreme court could have far-reaching effects (Diana Ramirez-Simon ..read more

Share It seems like the justices can’t have a monthly argument session without at least one case under the Federal Arbitration Act. Monday’s argument in Smith v. Spizziri asks what the options are for a trial judge who refers a pending suit to arbitration. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act says that if the court refers the case to arbitration, it “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” The question is whether the trial court, instead of staying the action, can go ahead and dismiss it entirely. Wendy Smith is one of ..read more

Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. The Fourth Amendment generally bars police from searching people or their property without a warrant. The Supreme Court has made an exception for searches made during an arrest. But although that exception applies to arrestees themselves, it only extends to their nearby possessions if there is a risk they can reach into them to grab a weapon or destroy evidence. This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to con ..read more

Share The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in a case that one legal expert has called the “most important Supreme Court case about homelessness in at least 40 years.” The issue before the court is the constitutionality of ordinances in an Oregon town that bar people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. Defending the ordinances, the city contends that the laws simply bar camping on public property by everyone. But the challengers in the case counter that the ordinances effectivel ..read more

Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here. Between the Feb. 23 conference and the April 12 conference — that’s six conferences — the Supreme Court relisted just one new case. That is a dry spell greater than anything I’ve seen in the more than a decade I’ve been writing this feature. This week, the court also began clearing out some relists that have been hanging around for a while. The court denied review of nine-time relist Compton v. Texas, involving alleged sex d ..read more