Heartbeat Law: Remember a couple months ago the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the heartbeat law. A few weeks ago, the heartbeat law went into effect. Now, just a few days ago, after 7 long years, Planned Parenthood has finally given up their fight against the heartbeat law.
Sexually Explicit Materials: The law passed in 2023 banning sexually explicit books from K-12 schools was initially blocked from going into effect by a lower court. The federal appeals court has reversed that, which now allows the law to go into effect. This is while the case makes its way through the courts.
Carbon Pipeline: The Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) has denied the several requests made to re-hear the case regarding Summit Carbon’s request for a permit to construct their CO2 pipeline. That means the IUC decision made in June approving a conditional permit (and power to use eminent domain) for Summit Carbon remains in effect. The next step to fight back is district court, and of course, the legislature.
U.S. Supreme Court Roundup
Below are summaries of significant decisions that came from the U.S. Supreme Court this summer:
Chevron Case
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, overturned a decision made in 1984, the Chevron case. That case had said that courts must use a federal agency’s interpretation of laws on which Congress is not explicit as long as such interpretation is “reasonable”. With this landmark ruling now 40 years later, judges are now charged to exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of the law. They cannot simply defer to a federal agency’s interpretation.
Over the last 40 years the old SCOTUS decision has allowed the government to issue and enforce many rules that interpret ambiguous laws Congress has made, without direct permission from Congress. It has also allowed Congress to shirk its obligations to make clear laws and instead make unclear laws and therefore defer its authority to governmental agencies. This was actually a violation of the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution permitting agencies to make “laws”, enforce “laws” and to interpret their “laws”.
Administrative agencies are no longer permitted to decide what a particular law means or to change the meaning of terms they do not like in a piece of legislation or to fundamentally alter the scope of a federal law on a whim. The separation of powers returns to its rightful place with this court decision.
This is a huge win for many citizens alarmed by the growth of government power especially when it comes to rules made by governmental agencies that have never gone through Congress. It is a huge setback to these agencies.
Government Censorship of Free Speech
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there wasn’t solid enough evidence for bringing a lawsuit against the federal government over President Biden and a number of various agencies who the court acknowledged pressured social media companies to violate the free speech rights of Americans on the internet.
This was a big disappointment and paves the way for the federal government to continue to use social media to violate citizens’ 1st Amendment rights on social media. In the dissent, Justice Alito said that what the government did was “blatantly unconstitutional” and that “if a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.” The case goes back to the lower courts.
Social Media Censorship of Free Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a case challenging Texas’ and Florida’s state laws which prevent social media companies from restricting users’ constitutionally-protected speech has to go back to the lower courts. SCOTUS said that the lower courts did not consider fully enough the right of private companies (which social media companies are) to restrict an individual’s speech. The 1st Amendment restricts the government from interfering with free speech but not a private company. Florida’s and Texas’ laws cannot go into effect while the case makes its way through the courts.
Chemical Abortion
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the pro-life doctors who said that the FDA loosening of safeguards on usage of abortion drugs was done in violation of federal law governing how agencies are supposed to make changes. The court said the doctors did not have standing to sue because they are not actually harmed or restricted by the changes the FDA made. The court did not decide the case on its merits but on the issue of whether the doctors had standing. The FDA leaves women and girls more exposed to the dangers of chemical abortion drugs even though they admit that roughly 1 in 25 women who take them will end up in the emergency room.
Title IX – Sex Discrimination
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that 2 lower courts’ decisions blocking the Biden administration’s changes to the Title IX rules will be upheld while the cases make their way through the courts. Title IX is the federal law governing sex discrimination in education. The Biden administration wanted to make changes requiring schools to allow biological males in women’s sports, women’s bathrooms, etc. The lower courts said No and SCOTUS agreed. Altogether, the Title IX changes are blocked in 26 states, including Iowa.
Camping and Homelessness
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that banning people from camping in public parks and fining them for doing that does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment”. It also does not criminalize the status of homelessness. This is a win for city and other local governments assuring that they have the authority to enforce laws prohibiting camping on public property by being able to clear their parks and other public spaces.
This has been a particular problem in cities and areas on the West Coast. The ruling does not require cities to pass and enforce these kinds of laws but it does allow them to take action to clear out what have been in many areas sprawling and squalid homeless camps on public grounds.
January 6th Defendants
In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal prosecutors who charged a January 6th defendant, Joseph Fischer, with violating a federal law that SCOTUS said did not apply to his case. The high court said the case should go back to the lower court and they should apply what SCOTUS said. This is all favorable for Joseph Fischer. The Dept. of Justice has also misapplied this same law in many other J6 defendant cases, so this case helps them, too.
President Trump Immunity
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Trump in a 6-3 decision. The court said President Trump had immunity (protection from prosecution) for official acts conducted in his role as president of the United States. The majority said a president may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and is entitled to at least be presumed to have immunity from prosecution for his official acts. The court also said that immunity from prosecution did not apply to a president’s unofficial acts while in office.
Specifically, the court found Trump is immune from prosecution for conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department. Additionally, the court said Trump is at least presumed to be immune from allegations that he tried to pressure Pence to reject certification of the vote in the 2020 presidential election.
SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower court for them to apply this decision to Trump’s case. They must determine which charges by the prosecutors against the president pertain to official or unofficial acts.
Constitutional attorneys are saying this mostly represents a victory for President Trump.
Idaho’s Abortion Law
In a 5-4ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the state of Idaho’s appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of the Biden administration against the state’s law protecting the unborn. SCOTUS said it took the case too early and so sent the case back to the lower court. Here’s what happened: The state of Idaho passed a law protecting most all unborn babies from abortion. The Dept. of Justice sued saying that Idaho’s law conflicted with a federal law which the DOJ said requires hospitals to provide emergency abortions when the mother’s health is at risk. Idaho said its law already allows for abortions in emergencies when the mother’s life is at risk. The disagreement is over what the federal law really means when it says health. It will likely wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court again to be decided on the merits of the case.
