In what cases did the United States Supreme Court decided at the end of its mandate in 2024? | Short news

The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest mandate with a multitude of successful decisions, approaching everything, from health care coverage to school reading lists.

On Friday, the court rendered the final decisions of the 2024 mandate before it took several months of recreation. The nine judges on his bench will meet in October.

But before their departure, the judges made the headlines. In a great victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the conservative majority of six people decided to limit the ability of the courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide.

Trump has long denounced judicial injunctions as an attack on his executive authority.

In two other decisions, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court again gathered. A decision allowed parents to withdraw from school equipment which includes LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the green light to Texas to place obstacles to prevent young people from consulting online pornography.

But a decision on access to health care has seen some conservative judges aligned themselves with their three leftist colleagues. Here is an overview of their final decisions of the 2024 quarter.

The court confirms preventive care requirements

In the case of Kennedy against Braidwood ManagementThe Supreme Court has seen its fracture of the usual ideological divisions.

Three conservative judges – Amy Condey Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined the Liberal Court branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a decision of six to three.

The challenge was the ability of a government working group to determine what types of preventive health care that the country’s insurers had to cover.

It was the last case to challenge the constitutionality of the affordable care law, legislation adopted by former President Barack Obama to extend access to health care.

This case has focused on a section of the law that has enabled a panel of health experts – from the Ministry of Health and Social Services – to determine which preventive services should be covered at no cost.

A group of individuals and businesses belonging to Christians had however challenged the legality of this working group.

They argued that the panel of experts constituted a violation of the appointment clause, a section of the Constitution which requires that some appointments be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate.

The group had previously obtained an injunction against the decision of the working group according to which drug prevention drugs are covered as preventive care.

This specific injunction was not weighed in the decision of the Supreme Court. But writing for the majority, judge Kavanaugh said that the working group was constitutional because it was made up of “lower officers” who did not need approval from the Senate.

The short wink at Texas Age Restrictions on Porn

Several states, including Texas, oblige users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, in order to protect minors from inappropriate equipment.

But the law of Texas is noted from the microscope of the Supreme Court on Friday, in a case called Coalition of freedom of expression against Ken Paxton.

The Free Speech Coalition is a non -profit organization that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They continued the Attorney General of Texas, Paxton, arguing that the Age on Age Verification Act would mitigate the rights of the first amendment, which protect the right to freedom of expression, the free association and private life.

The complainants noted the risks posed by sharing personal identification information online, including the possibility that identification of information such as birth dates and sensitive data can be disclosed. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, warned that the law of Texas “deprives people of anonymity”.

Writing for the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, Judge Clarence Thomas acknowledged that “submitting to age verification is a burden for the exercise” of the rights of the first amendment.

But, he added, “adults do not have the right to the first amendment to completely avoid age verification”. The majority confirmed Texas law.

The Court claims that children can withdraw from LGBTQ school equipment

The conservative supermajurity of the Supreme Court also continued its sequence of victories on religious freedom, with a decision in Mahmoud V Taylor.

This case was centered on the Montgomery County School Board in Maryland, where books representing LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary study programs.

A text, for example, was a book of images entitled Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl bringing together the courage to give a Valentine’s Day to a classmate. Another book, entitled Pride Puppy, follows a child looking for his lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride.

Parents of children in the school district opposed the equipment for religious reasons, and certain books, such as Pride Puppy, were finally withdrawn.

But the Council finally announced that it would refuse to allow parents to withdraw from approved equipment, on the grounds that it would create disturbances in the learning environment.

Some education officials also argued that allowing children to withdraw from LGBTQ equipment would give stigma to people who identify as part of this community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life.

In the decision of the majority, judge Samuel Alito said that the policy of the board of directors of education “maintains that parents’ religious opinions are not welcome in” the fully inclusive environment “that the Council claims to promote”.

“The program itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological compliance with specific opinions on sexuality and gender,” wrote Alito.

The court limits the use of national injunctions

Undoubtedly, The biggest decision of the day was another decision decided by the conservative supermajure of the Supreme Court.

In the case Trump against CasaThe Trump administration had used the use of injunctions at the national level to the highest court in the country.

The stake was an executive decree that Trump signed in his first day in office for his second term. This ordinance sought to reduce the concept of citizenship of the dawn, a right conferred under the fourteenth amendment of the American Constitution.

Previously, the citizenship of the right of birth had applied to almost all those born on American soil: whatever the nationality of their parents, the child would receive American citizenship.

But Trump denounced this application of the citizenship of the birth right to be too wide. In his decree, he filed restrictions on the citizenship of the birth law depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants.

Legal challenges broke out as soon as the decree was published, citing a precedent of the Supreme Court which confirmed the citizenship of the birth law, whatever the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued national injunctions to prevent the decree from taking effect.

Friday, the Supreme Court did not weigh the merit of Trump’s order on the citizenship of the dawn. But he evaluated a Trump administration petition arguing that national injunctions were Officement bodies.

The conservative super-majority has shaved with Trump, saying that the injunctions should generally not be universal, but should rather focus on the relief of specific complainants at hand. A possible exception, however, would be for collective appeals.

Amy CONEY BARRETT, the last addition of the court and appointed by Trump, wrote the decision of the majority.

“No one disputes that the executive has the duty to follow the law,” she wrote. “But the judiciary does not have the frantic power to enforce this obligation – in fact, the law sometimes prohibits the judiciary from doing so.”