A closer look: The final three Supreme Court cases
The Supreme Court ends its current term on Monday with three very different cases, on abortion, political corruption and the qualifications of gun ownership. Here is a breakdown of the cases.
Abortion
UPDATE: Court rules against Texas abortion laws
The petitioners in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt claim a Texas law enacted in 2013 would force about 75 percent of the state’s abortion services to close. Two provisions in the law require that doctors at clinics have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinics, and that clinics have facilities equal to those of an outpatient surgical center.
Texas officials believe the laws protect the health of the women seeking abortions by guaranteeing better care. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the state of Texas, but the Supreme Court stopped the law from going into effect until it could decide if it would accept an appeal.
The Supreme Court will decide two issues. First, it will look at if the appeals court properly handled a question about if the new restrictions would actually work to protect the health of women. The appeals court said it needed to defer to the Texas state legislature on that issue.
The second question is a broader one. The Court must decide it the law imposes an undue burden on women who seek abortions. The Court last ruled on this question in a 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.
In the Planned Parenthood decision, a divided court said that states couldn’t place an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion before fetal viability, and such burdens included “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” The last abortion case before the Court was Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, which upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
In the Whole Woman’s Health case, Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the swing vote. He wrote the majority decision in the Carhart case, but he also co-wrote the plurality opinion in the Planned Parenthood case.
Political Corruption
UPDATE: Court rules mostly for McDonnell
The stakes are high for the former Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell as his two-year prison sentence is on hold while the Court considers his case. The Court’s decision could also affect other public officials convicted or accused of acts of political corruption.
The McDonnell case is about the definition of alleged “official acts” undertaken by McDonnell to benefit a businessman, and if those acts were actually bribes.
McDonnell and his wife were convicted under a handful of laws that make it a crime to take money or other valuable things in return for the exercise of “official acts” in government, at the national, state or local level. Congress, in passing those laws, however, did not specify what “official acts” would be covered.
The Court is considering a two-pronged question: Whether “official action” is limited to “exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional.”
During April’s arguments, several Justices seemed openly skeptical of a broad definition of official acts equating to actual acts of bribery.
Federal Gun Law
Update: Court agrees with federal statute
Although not considered a major case by Court watchers, Voisine v. United States is notable as the case where Justice Clarence Thomas questioned lawyers at the bench during arguments – breaking a 10-year period of public silence at the Court.
The Voisine case is about the ability to restrict gun ownership for someone previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of recklessness. Under federal law, a person convicted of such a crime, as defined by a state, is also consider to fall under a category of conviction for domestic abuse under federal law.
Stephen Voisine was convicted in Maine of domestic assault under the state’s broad definition of the law for “intentional, knowing, or reckless” causing an assault. He was later found in possession of a rifle after his Maine conviction.
The Justices considered whether a “reckless” act is actually a use of force under the federal law, which probably caused some debate in private among the Justices about the definition of the word “reckless.” They didn’t consider direct Second Amendment issues -just the interpretation of the federal statute.
During the March arguments, Thomas asked nine questions, and his first question addressed a broader issue: “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”
Court watchers wouldn’t be surprised if Justice Thomas says more about this question when the Voisine decision is announced on Monday.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Constitution Check: Are the courts the answer to partisan gridlock in Washington?
Updated Supreme Court Scorecard: June 2016 Edition
Lyle Denniston joins National Constitution Center as Supreme Court correspondent
