It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]

[link removed]

Photo by Amanda Andrade-Rhoades for The Washington Post via Getty Images

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

6 BIG TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS HISTORIC SUPREME COURT TERM
By Marcia Coyle, @MarciaCoyle ([link removed])
U.S. Supreme Court analyst

The Supreme Court wrapped up a historic term this week, one that will be defined largely by unprecedented constitutional issues ([link removed]) involving former President Donald Trump.

Despite Trump’s dominance of the docket, much more happened in rulings that may affect multiple aspects of American lives.

Here are a few key themes from this term about the justices and the undercurrents in their rulings.

Curbing prosecutors

In recent terms, the Roberts Court has been narrowing the use of certain criminal laws after basically accusing prosecutors of overreaching. The conservative majority has done so in honest services and mail fraud cases. It continued that trend in two cases this term.

Fischer v. United States was brought by a defendant for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He argued that a law criminalizing obstruction of an official proceeding did not apply to him, because it only applied when there was destruction of documents or records. A divided Supreme Court agreed with him. ([link removed]) And in Snyder v. United States, a 6-3 court ruled that a federal law prohibiting bribes to state and local officials did not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities after the fact.

Putting the brakes on the administrative state

[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.

It may sound wonky, but don’t be deceived. In a quartet of decisions, the conservative majority handed victories to long-sought conservative and business efforts to rein in federal regulatory agencies. Those federal agencies make rules and regulations governing nearly every aspect of our lives, from the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the safety of products we use.

In that quartet of rulings, the justices did the following:
* Reversed a 40-year-old decision known as Chevron ([link removed]) that required courts to defer to expert agencies’ reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws when the courts’ own tools fail to determine what the law is (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo)
* Put on hold the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” plan ([link removed]) to minimize air pollution that crosses state lines (Ohio v. EPA)
* Replaced internal securities fraud proceedings with jury trials ([link removed]) (SEC v. Jarkesy)
* Expanded the period of limitations for filing challenges to federal rules (Corner Post v. Board of Governors)

Thomas’ gun test meets reality

In 2022, the court’s conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, announced a new test for the constitutionality of gun regulations: text, history, tradition.

Using this standard, a modern gun regulation had to have some connection to the use of similar arms prior to 1900. Lower courts did not necessarily have to find a twin to what existed historically, but at least something analogous to the modern weapon. The test was responsible for the elimination of a number of gun regulations ([link removed]) . And then, along came United States v. Rahimi.

After applying the Thomas test, a federal appellate court struck down a federal law that banned anyone with a domestic violence restraining order from owning guns. The appellate court said there was nothing in history to support the federal ban.

Would the Supreme Court, considering the likely public backlash, agree to strike down the law?

In an 8-1 decision, the court upheld the law. Chief Justice John Roberts looked to two early types of laws with principles that were shared by the federal law — protection of public safety. It is the principle that is important, he said. Was the ruling a softening of the Thomas test? Seven of the eight justices in the majority wrote separate opinions explaining their views of the test. Thomas was the lone dissenter.

The court clearly is engaged in internal discussions about application of the test. Americans will learn more as the justices consider what are inevitable gun challenges on their way to the high court.

Punting abortion

Perhaps it was the election year, perhaps it was too soon after jettisoning Roe v. Wade in 2022. But after granting review, briefing and arguments, the justices failed to reach the merits of two abortion cases, their first ones since their Dobbs decision.

A broad challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone by anti-abortion groups was dismissed ([link removed]) because the challengers lacked the right to sue, or standing (FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine). And the court also dismissed as premature ([link removed]) Idaho’s challenge to a federal law requiring emergency treatment to stabilize individuals even if treatment needed was an abortion. The dismissal in Moyle v. United States left in place a temporary injunction barring Idaho’s abortion ban.

Just like guns, abortion is destined to return to the Supreme Court.

Barrett charts her path

Some justices have said it takes three to five terms before a new justice feels comfortable on the high court. Barrett, 52, and the youngest justice, took her seat in 2020. While generally a reliable conservative vote, she has had flashes of independence, particularly in the most recent term.

For example, in the Trump immunity decision, while siding with the majority, she disagreed that prosecutors could not use an immune official act as evidence and context in prosecution of an unofficial act. She wrote the dissent, joined by the liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, in the Jan. 6 Fischer decision, disagreeing with the majority’s textualist interpretation of the criminal law at issue. In the unanimous decision finding that Colorado could not keep Trump off of its primary ballot (Trump v. Anderson), she wrote separately to criticize the court ([link removed]) for deciding more than was necessary to resolve the case.

And just two weeks ago, Barrett, who calls herself an “originalist,” disagreed with Thomas’s claim that "history and tradition" settle the constitutionality of the “names clause” in a federal trademark law. She called his approach “wrong twice over.” ([link removed])

The 3-3-3 Court

While there were surprises in terms of cross-ideological alignments among the justices this term, a pattern seen more recently continues to hold. The justices’ rates of agreement fall along these lines:
* Justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson on the left
* Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch on the right
* Chief Justice Roberts joining Justices Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in the center right

This term, Roberts was most often in the majority, followed by Kavanaugh and then Barrett. It truly was the Roberts Court.
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: How the Supreme Court immunity ruling reshapes presidential power ([link removed]) .
* One Big Question: What does the high court’s ruling mean for Trump specifically? We answer 6 questions ([link removed]) about the historic decision.
* A Closer Look: NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter on the calls for Biden to step aside. ([link removed])
* Perspectives: Oklahoma’s education head discusses why he’s mandating public schools teach the Bible ([link removed]) .

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

This term, the Supreme Court sharply curbed the administrative state, including overturning a decades-old legal precedent known as the Chevron doctrine.

It was coined by the high court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which granted power to federal agencies to interpret laws that are ambiguous or lack detailed instructions from Congress.

It’ll take years for experts to understand what the absence of this doctrine will mean for agencies and government regulations.

Our question: Including the Chevron decision, how many decisions has the Supreme Court overturned since 1810? We’re playing “Price Is Right” rules: Whomever gets closest without going over wins. (And please, no Googling for this one.)

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shoutout next week.

Last week, we asked: Who participated in the 1956 presidential debate?

The answer: Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt for the Democrats and Maine Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith. The first televised presidential debate featured the two women ([link removed]) who acted as surrogates for the two candidates, Adlai Stevenson and President Dwight Eisenhower, respectively. The debate largely focused on foreign affairs and public reaction was mixed, according to the Senate Historical Office.

Congratulations to our winners: Amy Christine Ast and Beverley Chang!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS News' e ([link removed]) mails ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2024 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3939 Campbell Ave.
Arlington, VA 22206

** Update my email preferences ([link removed])

** Unsubscribe from all PBS News emails ([link removed])