Amy Howe

Oct 21 2019

No new grants, no action on Indiana abortion case

Three days after adding another blockbuster case, involving the president’s ability to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to their docket for this term, the justices this morning issued additional orders from their private conference last week. Today’s orders were significantly less eventful. They were perhaps most noteworthy for the fact that the court once again did not act on Indiana’s request to review a state law requiring pregnant women to have an ultrasound at least 18 hours before obtaining an abortion. The justices have now considered the case at six conferences – three in May and three in October – without ruling on it.

The justices turned down a request from Minnesota to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit holding that the Federal Communications Commission’s policy of not regulating information services supersedes the state’s efforts to regulate VoIP, a tech service that allows phone calls over the internet. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion agreeing with the court’s decision to deny review that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas agreed that the state’s case did not satisfy the justices’ normal criteria for review. However, Thomas suggested, in a future case the justices might want to take up the question whether a federal agency’s policy has the stature of a federal “law” that can supersede state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause.

The justices also sent a partisan-gerrymandering challenge to maps drawn by Michigan’s Republican-controlled legislature back to the lower court. A federal district court had struck down the maps as unconstitutional, but in June the Supreme Court ruled that courts should stay out of such disputes. In the wake of that ruling, the challengers in the Michigan case acknowledged that the federal courts lack the power to review the case, so today’s order means that dismissal of the challenge is imminent.

The justices’ next conference is scheduled for Friday, November 1.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies