Friends, what a week.

The far-right political operatives on Trump and McConnell’s hand-picked Supreme Court were in peak form the last few days. They worked hard to buy Trump time to avoid accountability for his alleged criminal roles in stoking a violent insurrection. (Oh, and by the way, Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from the proceedings — despite Ginni Thomas’ widely reported role in stoking that insurrection.) 

And that wasn't all. The justices also continued to wage their assault on abortion rights by parsing whether pregnant people deserve medical care when their risk of organ failure might (somehow) be "temporary" rather than permanent.

This unaccountable panel of right wing overlords, horrifyingly, holds the future of our health, lives, and democracy in its hands. It makes you wonder: With “justices” like these, who needs a judiciary?

Thursday marked the final day of oral arguments for cases on the Supreme Court’s merits docket for this term, which means some major decisions further threatening our basic rights and freedoms and undermining our democracy are looming just over the horizon.

Catch up on some of the highlights (or shall we say lowlights) from this week’s arguments below. Thank you for reading, for continuing to speak up about this broken court, and for being a part of the movement to expand and rebalance it. We couldn’t do any of this without you.

The Atlantic | The Supreme Court Goes Through the Looking Glass on Presidential Immunity

"These deep divisions and tough questions suggest that the justices could take some time to rule. And that is why, in a sense, Trump has already won the case. He won by persuading the Supreme Court to even hear the matter, and he wins even bigger if they must take weeks to hammer out a decision—not to mention that the decision itself could then create the potential for further rounds of litigation.”

Vox | How the Supreme Court weaponizes its own calendar

“This is one of the most widely followed cases the Supreme Court has heard in recent memory. For the first time in American history, a former president faces criminal charges. And these charges are a doozy, alleging that Trump targeted our democracy itself.

“So why is this argument so inconsequential? The answer is that Trump has already won everything he could reasonably expect to win from the Supreme Court, and then some.”

➡️ For more on how the court wields its power over which cases it hears and when it hears them to help its right-wing allies, check out Take Back the Court’s Substack post from February.

The Guardian | ‘How sick do they have to get?’ Doctors brace for US supreme court hearing on emergency abortions

“‘The problem is that you’re pitting patients and physicians against each other,’ Zahedi-Spung said. ‘If the physician provides the care the patient needs, then the physician is in harm’s way. And if the physician doesn’t provide the care the patient needs, the patient is in harm’s way. But neither of them can ever be safe at the same time.’”

This week, the court’s schedule was jam-packed — and everything from dehumanizing laws targeting unhoused people to emergency abortion care to the future of our democracy were on the agenda. 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. United States: an opportunity for the justices to decide whether Trump should be immune from prosecution for his interference in the 2020 election. 

This case could’ve — and should’ve — been heard months ago. But Trump’s hand-picked supermajority chose to hand him yet another favor by delaying arguments until the very last oral argument day of this term.

A longer wait for arguments means a longer wait for a decision. Which means, no matter how the court ultimately rules, Trump gets the delay before a potential criminal trial that he wants. 

It’s another insidious move by the Roberts Court to pretend it is acting as a neutral arbiter of the law… while in reality, it is working overtime as the legal arm of the Republican Party.

In the latest legal fallout from Dobbs, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States —  consolidated cases that could give the right-wing justices a chance to bar medical professionals from providing emergency abortion care to pregnant people experiencing health-threatening emergencies.

These are the kinds of cases you see and think, simply: How? How can we possibly be having this conversation in 2024? How is the highest court in the land entertaining something so horrifying?

But this is the mess the right-wing supermajority has invited and encouraged — a world where doctors are forced to wait for their patients to get sicker and sicker before they are allowed to intervene and hope enough time is left to save their lives.

This week, the court heard arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson. As we previewed in our last issue of Full Court Press, this case may give cities and states the ability to destroy shelters and penalize unhoused people who have no other housing alternatives. 

In a country where support services for unhoused people are severely lacking, this case is a violent attack on some of our most already vulnerable communities. 

As Justice ​​Sotomayor aptly put it during arguments, for unhoused people, “sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public.” She went on to question, pointedly, exactly how these individuals are supposed to survive under restrictions like these — or, she asks, are they just “supposed to kill themselves?”

If you enjoyed this edition of Full Court Press, I hope you’ll consider chipping in to support our work to expand the Supreme Court to put power back where it belongs – with the people.