Blog

The 2023-2024 United States Supreme Court term has been one of the most destructive in recent years. This term, the Supreme Court put ideology before evidence and expertise, grabbed power from our elected officials in favor of extremist judges serving on lower courts, and showed that they care more about their personal preferences than Americans’ health, safety and more. The Court has continued to manipulate the law to achieve their desired ideological and political outcomes. Most notably, in Trump v. United States, the Court ruled that former President Trump is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for “conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This decision grants future presidents monarch-like power and allows them to act without regard to the law. This dangerous shift is not only a threat to women – particularly disabled women, women of color, LGBTQI+ women and other multiply marginalized women – in our country: it is a threat to our democracy as we know it.

Unwinding Critical Public Agency Work

Americans expect public agencies to work for them and set strong rules that reflect everyone, protecting the simple things that help us live our lives – from the quality of what we buy, to our workplaces, to the environment we live and breathe in. The Supreme Court’s latest rulings will make it harder for hardworking civil servants to do their jobs and protect Americans from harm, and it shows how the ethically corrupt, ultra-conservative justices on the Supreme Court are doing the bidding of special interests.

The Court’s justices made their most dangerous power grab yet in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court upended sound, longstanding, legal precedent that has provided protections for everyday people for decades by overturning the landmark Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Doing so severely limits the ability of public agencies to issue regulations and enforce laws that protect people in every corner of the nation from bad actors. The decision allowed these justices to grant themselves, and their allies on lower courts, even more authority to rewrite the rules in favor of special interests, billionaires and major corporations at the expense of the American people. While corporate interests will stand to benefit, small businesses are also greatly impacted because subsequent rules may be opaque or inconsistent – over 250,000 small businesses who rely on regulatory consistency expressed their concern if the Court overturned Chevron. This decision is one of three that widely undermines public agencies’ ability to create and enforce regulations to protect the most vulnerable people in the country.

While Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System appears to be an innocuous case about debit card fees, the case actually addresses the amount of time a person, company or other entity has to challenge a federal regulation. Previously, a person, company or other entity had six years from the time a regulation was finalized to bring a claim. Now, with the Court’s ruling, the statute of limitations does not begin until a party is harmed by a regulation, ultimately allowing a plaintiff to challenge a federal regulation at any time – or back in time. In other words, and as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent, “the majority’s approach creates uncertainty for the Government and every entity that relies on the Government to function. . . . [F]rom this day forward, administrative agencies can be sued in perpetuity over every final decision they make.”

What does this mean for us? The Supreme Court could jeopardize decades-old established protections supporting women, including protections against pregnancy discrimination, harassment and more. In fact, just last year a lower court rejected a challenge to the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone because the FDA had issued its final rule over 20 years earlier. The Corner Post ruling could open this long-settled decision back up, allowing plaintiffs a greater chance to challenge long-standing federal protections

Leaving Abortion Access Hanging In the Balance

The Supreme Court this term created an environment of uncertainty around reproductive freedoms and recklessly left open doors to further challenges to essential abortion care. In Moyle vs. United States and FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court heard cases challenging abortion access in the case of emergencies and accessing medication abortion, respectively.

In Moyle v. United States, the Court dismissed a challenge to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act’s (EMTALA) protections for emergency abortion care, admitting it should not have taken the case in the first place. In doing so, the Court missed an opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally that EMTALA’s protections preempt state abortion bans. This decision perpetuates the growing chaos and confusion about the scope of patient protections and providers’ legal obligations, forcing pregnant people facing medical emergencies to wait for critical care, putting their future fertility, their health and their very lives at risk. These patients in dire need of medical care cannot afford delays or denials and do not deserve to be left limbo like they have for the last two years.

In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court held that the anti-abortion plaintiffs lacked standing – the ability to legally challenge – the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of two medications commonly used in medication abortion. This means plaintiffs did not demonstrate a real injury or a sufficient connection to FDA’s regulation of mifepristone – neither having prescribed mifepristone or treating patients who used it – to challenge the agency’s decision-making in the courts.

While medication abortion remains available for now, the opinion failed to address the substance of the lawsuit, leaving the door open to future challenges from other parties. Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court did the bare minimum here. Mifepristone is safe and effective with over 20 years of FDA approval based on scientific and medical evidence; threats to its access should not make their way to the nation’s highest Court. With medication abortion accounting for 63 percent of all abortions, access to medication abortion should not be up to anti-abortion extremist judges to decide.

Both of these cases highlight the looming threat of future attacks on abortion access. The Supreme Court continued to place its extremist ideology over the expertise of providers and the health and safety of pregnant patients. As we see these cases play out in lower courts, the right to essential care will remain vulnerable.

Endangering Lives of Unhoused People

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the Supreme Court decided that a law in the city of Grants Pass, Oregon that criminalized encampments on public property did not violate the Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ignored the real-world implications of this dangerous precedent to reach their ideologically-driven decision. This holding will lead the way for other cities and localities to criminalize homelessness. With women more likely than men to live in poverty; disabled women of color experiencing particularly high rates of poverty; and the fact that housing insecurity disproportionately impacts women, the LGBTQI+ community, disabled people, immigrants, people of color and veterans, this is a devastating blow to some of the most marginalized communities.

Fair Outcomes

One positive decision from this term was the Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi. In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court held that the government may deny firearms to people who are subject to domestic violence protective orders. Gun violence and domestic violence are crises in the United States. An Everytown report shows that two-thirds of intimate partner homicides in the United States are committed with a gun and 75 percent of intimate partner firearm homicide victims are women. Women of color are also the most impacted by this type of violence – American Indian/Alaska Native, Black and Latinx women are victims of intimate partner firearm homicides at the highest rates. This decision was crucial to the safety of thousands who are survivors of domestic violence. At the same time, it’s important to note that this case represents only a slight course correction from the Court’s ruling two years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case which dramatically undermined the ability of states to regulate firearms and promote safety.

In Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer, the Supreme Court once again avoided making a decision that could have upended Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) enforcement, holding the case was moot. The Court was slated to decide whether a disabled woman had standing to sue hotels whose websites failed to state whether they have accessible rooms for the disabled as required by the ADA, even if Laufer did not intend to stay at the hotels. While this case could have served a devastating blow to standing for testers, which play a crucial role in civil rights enforcement, this question is on hold – at least for now. Women are more likely than men to have a disability, and Indigenous and Black adults in particular are more likely to have a disability than white adults. Ensuring we can enforce this landmark civil rights statute is critical for disabled women, particularly disabled women of color.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri that a person bringing a claim related to a discriminatory transfer based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not need to cause significant harm – just some harm. This decision will ease the burden for women and LGBTQI+ individuals bringing these types of claims in the future.

What We’re Watching in the Court’s Next Term

The Supreme Court has already decided to take up a number of cases for the 2024-2025 term. We are awaiting decisions about what else the Supreme Court plans to take up. Here are some of the cases we are watching.

Two cases next term could greatly affect access to gender-affirming health care for transgender youth.

• U.S. v. Skrmetti will address whether a Tennessee bill that prohibits gender-affirming health care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• Labrador v. Poe, which has an application pending for SCOTUS review, would address whether a court can prevent anyone – not just those involved in a lawsuit – from enforcing a law that would ban gender-affirming health care in Idaho.

Several cases could also impact the rights of workers, particularly women, people of color and disabled workers.

• E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera will determine how difficult it is for an employer to claim they are excused from meeting requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
• Stanley v. City of Stanford, Florida will address whether a former employee loses the right to file a disability discrimination claim related to post-employment benefits just because that employee no longer holds the position. This is particularly important for post-employment benefits, since any recipients of those types of benefits would no longer be employed by definition.
• In Lyft, Inc. v. California and Uber Technologies, Inc. v. California, Uber and Lyft are seeking to invalidate a California law that allows drivers to sue Uber or Lyft in court, even if they signed an arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreements like these can make filing civil rights and other types of claims against employers more difficult.
• While Williams v. Washington involves a claim that the Alabama Department of Labor violated petitioners’ constitutional and other rights for failing to act on their unemployment applications, this case could have a much broader impact on what is required to bring all types of civil rights and constitutional claims against the government. Williams will address whether someone must go through all possible state administrative processes before filing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a state court. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows individuals to sue the government for civil rights, constitutional and other violations.

Regardless of what happened at the Supreme Court this term, or what happens at the Supreme Court next term, the National Partnership will continue to champion the policies we know support the health, safety and economic security of all women. We will continue to hold this extremist, power hungry Supreme Court accountable for the harm inflicted on women, disabled people, people of color, LGBTQI+ people and other marginalized communities. However, as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her famous dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., “Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court” to restore the checks and balances critical to our democracy.

Credits: Authors would like to thank Gail Zuagar, Sharita Gruberg, Shaina Goodman, Molly Kozlowski, and Mettabel Law for their contributions.