The U.S. Supreme Court took several noteworthy actions in early October: it denied an appeal by anti-abortion activists in a First Amendment dispute with Planned Parenthood, declined an examination of New Jersey’s “slogan statutes,” and rejected an appeal from John Eastman, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, among other actions. The Court’s denials are part of a large wave of cases that the justices considered at one of their conferences.
In a dispute with Planned Parenthood, a group of anti-abortion activists had secretly recorded and published conversations with Planned Parenthood doctors and staff. They alleged that Planned Parenthood was trading in fetal tissue for profit. When a jury awarded Planned Parenthood nearly $2.5 million in response, the activists argued that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on this matter. For more details, you can review the Mazo v. Way case.
Similarly, the Court refused to consider a challenge to the legality of New Jersey’s “slogan statutes” — laws that allow candidates to place a brief saying next to their names on the primary election ballot. This raises the question as to whether such laws should be subjected to strict constitutional scrutiny or evaluated using a less severe balancing test.
In relation to the investigation into the January 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court denied a petition from former Justice Thomas clerk John Eastman. A federal court previously ruled that emails sent by Eastman, who was indicted with former President Donald Trump and others on allegations of conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results, should be submitted under the “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client communication protection. Eastman had pursued having that ruling overturned following accidental disclosure of the emails. No reason for denial of the petition was provided by the Supreme Court. The full details on this can be found here: John Eastman petition details.
The Supreme Court also solicited the views of the Biden administration on three different cases: Blenheim Capital v. Lockheed Martin, Dermody v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Health & Human Services, and Astrazenaca UK v. Atchley. As there is no set deadline for U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to submit her briefs on behalf of the administration, these cases present important areas to watch.
In summary, these actions taken by the Supreme Court continue to underscore the significant legal issues at stake within our current judicial system. Here is the full coverage of the Supreme Court’s recent activities.