On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court summarized one of the most important conditions in recent history, abolishing the right to national abortion and revealing a form of gun control. Addressed a series of issues on other controversial issues. Polarization and ideologically divided decisions.
As the Supreme Court of the State, the Supreme Court routinely issues very important opinions that affect people's daily lives.
However, the term is remembered as one of the most important, as the High Court has declared for the first time in 50 years that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right.
The June 24 abortion ruling was welcomed as a victory by social conservatives, with a draft majority opinion leaked a few weeks ago, as an attack on female reproductive rights by liberals. Despite being accused, it was a bomb.
He also showed a lasting legacy of the three Supreme Court nominations of former President Donald Trump for his four-year tenure.
Trump evenly divided the court between conservative and liberal judges 4 to 4 because the seats of the late Judge Antonin Scalia had not yet been filled with nine members 2017 I took office in the year.
By the end of Trump's term four years later, conservatives had a 6-3 majority.
Supreme Court judges point out that many of their decisions are unanimous or nearly unanimous, in favor of conservative and liberal judges, and are above politics. I want to say. It used to be true, but now it isn't.
The court has issued fewer unanimous decisions. According to Supreme Court scholar and empirical SCOTUS blog author Adam Feldman, the percentage of unanimous decisions dropped from 49% in 2016 to 28% this quarter. On the other hand, the court has taken up a number of hot button issues, resulting in a higher percentage of 6-3 ideological decisions.
But Feldman said it was more important how the conservative majority tackled the controversial issue. "The judge is more daring in the type of case he needs because he knows there are numbers to win," Feldman said, a conservative block with a six-vote asylum-prevention majority. "Even if (Judge) Roberts, (Judge Neil) Gorsuch, or (Judge Brett) Kavanaugh swing in the case, at least two people are needed to move in the opposite direction (in the case of conservatives). That wasn't the case. This term will happen in a really important case. "
Meanwhile, the White House is armed with some of the Supreme Court's decisions in recent weeks.
On Wednesday, President Joe Biden called the Supreme Court's decision on pregnancy "destabilization" and "outrageous" and called the Senate's agenda rules codifying the right to pregnancy in legislation. He expressed his support to end it.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court's groundbreaking ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency lacked the authority to reduce gas emissions at power plants "aimed to retreat our country. It's a catastrophic decision. "
The Republicans welcomed and upheld the court's ruling. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who played an important role in identifying candidates for the Supreme Court of Trump, called Biden's "attacks on court are worthless and dangerous." I criticized what it was.
Let's take a look at the four notable decisions of this term.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
This was the most important decision of the term, if not past generations.
In a 6-3 decision on June 24, the Supreme Court overturned its groundbreaking 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, saying that the US Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion. The
decision abolishes almost half a century of Supreme Court case. However, conservative Judge Samuel Alito wrote that the long-standing principle of adhering to precedent was "not a straitjacket," and Law was "terribly wrong and causing serious damage." Roberts, who voted in the
majority vote, nevertheless called his majority opinion a "serious impact on the legal system" and said he would have supported a "narrower decision." "
Three dissenting liberal judges in the court accused the majority of the decisions of" reducing women's rights and reducing their status as free and equal citizens. " Enact your own miscarriage law. According to one research group, 26 states are expected to limit or ban miscarriage, forcing women to travel long distances to other states for procedures.
Legal experts say the meaning of a decision beyond abortion Arito wrote that the decision is limited to abortion, but progressives affect other rights, such as the right to same-sex marriage. I am concerned that there is a possibility.
New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Buren
This was the Supreme Court's greatest gun right, a decision of more than 10 years.
By a 6-3 vote on June 23, the Supreme Court ruled that people have the right to carry weapons in public for self-defense.
The problem was New York state law, which required people who wanted to carry guns out of the house to show a "special need" for a license.
Conservative judge Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, states that the state can regulate firearms, but such regulation is the "right to arm" of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. He said it must be consistent with the right to "maintain."
New York State Law states that "Citizens who comply with the law that requires the usual right of self-defense shall hold and retain the right to arm in public for self-defense, Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. It is forbidden to exercise the right, "Thomas wrote.
Three liberal judges in the court objected. Judge Stephen Breyer's retirement wrote that the court's ruling "severely" hindered state efforts to combat gun violence by limiting the use of firearms. (Brayer was replaced by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first female judge of the African-American Supreme Court, on the final day of the court.)
This was restricted by the court. It was the most important gun rights decision since 2008, when it was lifted. Registration of guns in the national capital, and the requirement that gun owners drop firearms at home and leave them disassembled.
West Virginia Environmental Protection Agency
This is the most important thing that has reached the Supreme Court in recent history. It was one of the environmental incidents.
The 6-3 ruling earlier this week has hit the Biden administration's plans to combat climate change, but it has implications beyond environmental policy.
The problem was the Obama-era EPA plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The Trump administration abolished a plan known as the Clean Power Plan, but last year a federal court revived the plan and sent it back to the EPA.
Roberts said that reducing carbon emissions may be a "wise solution" to climate change, but "Parliament empowers the EPA to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own. It's plausible to give it. "
Three liberal judges in the court objected and complained that the court had stripped the separation of powers from the EPA "to address" the most pressing environmental problems of our time. " Stated. Consider this ruling as a victory to curb the separation of powers and the power of the federal office to create regulations not approved by Parliament.
"Parliament has the power to enact all kinds of laws in the field of climate change," said Antonin Scalia, a prominent senior researcher in constitutional research at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy. Said Edward Whelan, the chairman of the. Conservative think tanks and advocacy groups. "Do not allow bureaucrats to simply run away without being responsible for what is happening in Congress."
Environmentalists said the ruling reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It claims to interfere with America's ability to harm the planet.
Biden vs. Texas
With the rare victory of the Biden administration, the split Supreme Court voted 5- 4 on June 30 will allow the administration to end the Trump-era immigration policy known as "staying in Mexico."
The policy, implemented in 2019, retained tens of thousands of asylum seekers in Mexico and awaited hearings in immigration courts in the United States. The Biden administration abolished this policy in 2021, but faced legal challenges by several states.
The decision was written by Roberts, with the addition of a conservative Kavanaugh and three liberal judges in court.
Under federal immigration law, the government "may" return asylum seekers arriving at the US border with Mexico back to Mexico.
This suggests that the government is "not required" to do so, Roberts wrote.
Immigration groups have ended the unfairness and welcomed this ruling in line with American history as a destination for immigrants, but some Republicans have recorded to the southern border of the United States. He criticized that the number of popular immigrants is likely to accelerate. Further away.
White House Director Patsy Widakuswara contributed to this report.