WASHINGTON (AP) — On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case aimed at severely restricting access to medication abortion throughout the country. The case was strategically filed before a Trump-appointed judge and was intended to be fast-tracked to the far-right U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. While the procedural tactics used by the plaintiffs were not directly at issue, some justices expressed skepticism towards the alliance between ambitious conservative litigants and Trump-appointed judges who exceed their constitutional authority.
According to legal experts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, the Supreme Court’s growing backlash against rogue district courts and their enabling circuit courts was discussed on the Slate Plus podcast, Amicus. Justice Neil Gorsuch, during oral arguments, voiced his concerns about the “rash of universal injunctions” originating from district courts in the 5th Circuit, and the subsequent emergencies that reach the Supreme Court. Gorsuch pointed out that there had been zero universal injunctions during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency, but 60 in the past four years.
Gorsuch’s frustration with nationwide injunctions is not new. He expressed similar concerns during recent arguments in the Murthy case, where he criticized overbroad injunctions issued by Trump-appointed judges against the Biden administration. However, some argue that Gorsuch’s objections have been inconsistent, as he voiced his complaints during the Trump era but remained silent when Trump judges issued nationwide injunctions against Biden’s policies.
The trend of the 5th Circuit repeatedly presenting controversial cases to the Supreme Court was a recurring theme among legal experts. One notable case involved Texas’ anti-immigrant law, S.B. 4, where the 5th Circuit attempted to divert immigration law power from the federal government to individual states. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett chastised the 5th Circuit for its actions, leading to a swift change in the 5th Circuit’s stance.
The chief judge of the 5th Circuit, Priscilla Richman, wrote a majority opinion declaring the Texas law clearly unconstitutional and in violation of precedent. However, Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee known for his extreme views, dissented vehemently. Oldham’s reaction seemed aimed not only at his colleagues but also at the Supreme Court, accusing them of preventing Texas from implementing its strict immigration policies.
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s reaction to the actions of the 5th Circuit may signal a turning tide. Justices could be growing tired of the extra workload and the need to address unconstitutional measures from lower courts. The ongoing clash between circuit courts and the Supreme Court’s efforts to maintain its authority and interpret the law have created a unique dynamic within the federal judiciary.
Shamelessness, as seen in the actions of some circuit court judges, may prove to be detrimental rather than advantageous. Legal scholars argue that deference to the Supreme Court should prevail, rather than engaging in actions that continuously burden the highest court with matters that should be settled at the lower level.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s recent case involving medication abortion and its ongoing battle with district and circuit courts underscore the need for a reevaluation of the role and authority of each level of the judiciary system.