There is no doubt that this is a busy time for America. With the presidential debate concluded, democrats are left in turmoil discussing whether or not the party should replace Joe Biden as the front-running candidate. The Supreme Court is playing a fundamental role in all of this, having just now decided that the January 6 insurrectionists cannot be charged under an obstruction law, which could extend sentences past vandalism and other misdemeanors. The court applied the law narrowly when, at first glance, it seems cut and dry that insurrectionists are guilty of “obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding” (paraphrased). We are still digesting the court’s decision, though, and now it’s overshadowed by the presidential immunity opinion in Trump v. United States. 

What we do know is how the candidates responded to another landmark case: Moyle v. United States. This case’s opinion to dismiss was given on June 27th, on the day of the debate, and Justice Jackson gave the opinion of the court. The facts of the case should have been relatively simple: 

The Biden Administration brought the suit against Idaho, arguing that a state law on abortion conflicted with federal law. Biden’s law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA), approved abortions if a woman’s health was at risk. Idaho’s law prohibits abortions in general, creating a “clear conflict” according to Justice Kagan, in which she concurred with the opinion. 

According to the Oyez case summary, “the district court ruled in favor of the Biden administration and barred Idaho from enforcing its law to the extent that it conflicted with EMTALA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, declined to stay the district court's ruling while the state appealed.”

We know Article VI of the Constitution holds the Supremacy Clause, a constitutional principle that states that federal law trumps state law when in conflict. So, logically, Idaho’s law should have been preempted by the EMTLA, right? 

The Supreme Court allowed emergency abortions in Idaho with this decision, but then dismissed it on the federal level. So yes, they did go with the Supremacy Clause. We must understand that Idaho has the most severe abortion laws in the country, only providing exceptions when “necessary to prevent the mother’s death.”

Justice Jackson voiced her concerns, which was a factor in the debate. She voiced a “de facto” concern, that physicians “on the ground” were left confused about whether or not life-saving abortions are legal. The Supreme Court, she reasoned, denied a chance to set a standard across the nation. This is precisely what the candidates had a chance to say.

As an order, 5 months before the Supreme Court heard this case, the 9th Appeals Court stayed the injunction set by the district court. For months, Jackson argued that the appeals court's stay “...meant that Idaho physicians were forced to step back and watch as their patients suffered, or arrange for their patients to be airlifted out of Idaho.” This created panic among physicians, something that she thought was unnecessary. 

So, in summary, Jackson argued that the court, in dismissing it on a federal level, lost a chance to clear up inconsistencies with abortion. It was a win for patients struggling to get emergency care in Idaho, but a lost chance to set the national standard. 

Now we know the facts of the case, but did the candidates know? It’s interesting because the candidates, each, had a week to prepare for the questions. However, this was recent, so it’s likely they had to think a little on their feet. 

“I believe in rape, incest, and the life of the mother,” said Donald Trump, when asked about this case and the abortion pill case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. He also said he wouldn’t attempt to reduce abortion pill manufacturing. This is in minutes from Joe Biden’s vehement declaration on restoring Roe v. Wade. Biden then directly addressed the problems with abortion being restored to the states, while it seemed like Trump glossed over Jackson’s concerns, but in context to Roe.  

Biden voiced his concerns, ones that are shared by many legal and political scholars, on the system of federalism. Each state has its own laws, now, on abortion, similar to its own laws on drugs. Returning Roe to the states, similar to this case, creates inconsistency. The physicians “on the ground” didn’t know what to do, what rules to follow, or what laws were acceptable. Biden touched on this more than Trump, but of course, in the context of Roe.

None of them directly mentioned this case, only staying on Roe v. Wade’s overturn. I think CNN should have referenced Justice Jackson’s concerns, and what they would and could do about it, to create a more national, uniform standard on abortions. Instead, we only focused on a decision two years ago, something that is important but dated compared to other matters. 

A hectic season for the Supreme Court, it’s likely the two branches will stay separated. It seems that there’s a loss of national identity, correspondence between the judicial and executive, and uniformity. This debate certainly proved it, and we need to do better.