Supreme Court Concludes Term with Rulings on Abortion, Regulatory Power, and Executive Authority

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision allowing the FDA's regulation of mifepristone to stand directly impacts access to reproductive healthcare services for Idaho residents, while rulings on regulatory power and executive authority could influence the operations of federal agencies within the state.

---

Washington D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its latest term, issuing significant rulings that affected areas ranging from reproductive rights to the power of the executive branch. A legal analyst, David Super of Georgetown University Law Center, assessed the court's recent decisions. Super characterized the recent term as a period of significant judicial activity, highlighting several key themes within the court's judgments. He pointed to decisions concerning the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation of the abortion drug mifepristone. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA's actions, allowing the drug to remain widely available. Another notable ruling limited the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of in-house judges. The court decided that individuals facing SEC enforcement actions have a right to a jury trial in federal court. Super noted that this ruling restricts the ability of federal agencies to adjudicate certain disputes internally. Regarding presidential immunity, the court sent a case back to a lower court to determine the extent of a president's immunity from prosecution for official acts. This decision directs a fact-intensive review of previous presidential actions in relation to criminal charges. Super also drew attention to a case involving the administrative state, where the court upheld the Chevron doctrine concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This ruling affirmed a degree of judicial deference to federal agencies in their implementation of Congress's directives. Super observed a pattern where the court, in certain instances like the mifepristone case, allowed existing practices to continue by ruling on procedural grounds rather than the substantive issues at hand. He indicated that while some outcomes appeared moderate, the underlying legal principles in play often reflected broader shifts in judicial interpretation.