The U.S. Supreme Court 2024: A Recap

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its 2023-2024 term and issued the last of their decisions. In decisions related to guns, abortion access, homelessness, and more, the Court continues to be one of the most relevant policymakers in the United States. Keep reading to learn more about a few key decisions from this term that affect WRJ’s mission of creating a more just and compassionate world for all.

RAHIMI v. UNITED STATES

Rahimi v. United States dealt mainly with the question of what restrictions the federal government can place on who can have guns. For many years, the federal government has prohibited individuals with domestic violence convictions from obtaining firearms. However, the legislation had a narrow definition of a domestic abuser leaving a loophole for abusers who did not fit that definition to acquire guns. That loophole, often called the “boyfriend loophole” or “intimate partner loophole” was partially closed by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022.

In this particular case, Zackey Rahimi sued the U.S. government arguing that under the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in New York v. Bruen (2022) his domestic violence conviction could not be used as a reason to prevent him from owning firearms because the laws had no historical basis. Thankfully, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government was permitted to prevent those who have been found by a court to pose a credible threat from attaining firearms. This decision is a huge relief for many victims and survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence who can remain reassured that their abusers do not have a legal avenue to access guns. However, there is still work to be done; we know that gun violence and domestic violence are lethally connected, and there are still legal gaps that allow for some abusers to get firearms.

Read WRJ’s response to Rahimi v. United States.

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE

In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of doctors sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), hoping to remove mifepristone from the market. Mifepristone is one of two medications commonly used in a medication abortion and has a 99% safety record. The removal of mifepristone from the market would have hindered access to abortion for millions across the country, especially in states where abortion is otherwise banned or heavily restricted. Medication abortion accounted for roughly 66 percent of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, is often more accessible than a procedural abortion, and often the only safe option for abortion in states with bans.

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to Mifepristone by noting the doctors had no specific standing to sue, but explicitly left the door open for future challenges. While it’s a relief that medication abortion will remain legal and accessible for the time being, it’s notable that the Court did not specifically affirm the merits or legality of medication abortion. While it’s true that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, the Supreme Court’s decision was far from a strong defense of mifepristone and abortion medication.  

Read WRJ’s response to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

IDAHO v. UNITED STATES

Idaho v. United States dealt with a major challenge to Idaho’s abortion ban under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA, a federal law passed nearly forty years ago, requires that emergency room doctors provide patients with stabilizing care, including for conditions related to labor and pregnancy. After the decision in Dobbs, the Department of Justice sent a guidance to hospitals and clinics across the country, letting them know that they were still required to administer abortion-related care in emergency situations to follow EMTALA, even in states where abortion was banned or heavily restricted.  

Idaho’s abortion ban states that abortion is only permitted when necessary to save the life of the mother. The federal government sued Idaho, noting that doctors under the federal law were required to provide not just “stabilizing,” but necessarily “lifesaving” care as well. In early January, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s injunction to the law, essentially meaning that the law was in effect while the Supreme Court heard and deliberated the case; this led to many pregnant patients being airlifted out of Idaho to ensure they could get the care they needed.  

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t uphold or strike down the clause in Idaho’s abortion ban; rather they deferred the question back to the lower courts. While it’s initially reassuring that the Supreme Court reinstated the pause on Idaho’s abortion ban, it’s concerning that the decision wasn’t a clear statement about the supremacy of a federal law and why emergency abortion care is necessary. One-third of pregnancies include an emergency room visit, and up to 15 percent include potentially life-threating conditions for which abortion care might be the only treatment that can stabilize a patient. Moreover, bans like these will continue to cause confusion amongst doctors, leading to serious, if not immediately fatal, complications for patients.

Read WRJ’s response to Idaho v. United States.

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON

The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson case began in Grants Pass, Oregon, when the city began issuing nearly three-hundred-dollar fines to people sleeping in public, despite there not being enough safe, accessible shelter beds to house everyone. While the ordinances that allowed the city to issue tickets were technically meant to discourage camping, it had an outsized impact on the homeless population. Several residents experiencing homelessness challenged the local law, arguing that issuing fines against homelessness was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled for the city of Grants Pass, arguing that the Eighth Amendment could not be used to dictate specific policy responses to an issue as “complex” as homelessness. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court essentially allowed for the criminalization of homelessness. The impacts of this decision are varied and many, but experts have already noted that this ruling will be particularly difficult on survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence. 57% of unhoused women report domestic violence as their immediate cause of homelessness, and fines like these will both make life more difficult for those already in tough spots and discourage people from leaving dangerous home situations.  

The full case list is not complete for next term, but WRJ and our partners at the RAC will continue to raise our collective voice in support of social justice.