Panel Discussion on Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The Brennan Judicial Center hosted a panel featuring legal experts, including a law professor from Alabama, to discuss the implications of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling during a webinar. Alicia Bannon, who heads the Judicial Program at the Brennan Center, moderated the conversation.

The panel included distinguished figures like a University of Alabama attorney, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, King Cecilia, the ACLU’s National Legal Director, and Kim Wale, a law professor at the University of Baltimore.

Panelists were asked to reflect on the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s recent term, which concluded on June 27th. They began by revisiting the case Trump vs. Casa, where plaintiffs contested an executive order by President Donald Trump aimed at terminating birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

While the Supreme Court didn’t address the birthright citizenship issue directly, it deemed the broad use of national injunctions by district courts to block the executive order as “an inappropriate form of relief.” The court also issued a decision related to another executive order on this topic on July 27th.

Wang, one of the panelists, elaborated on legal precedents concerning national injunctions and their potential future impact. “The appropriateness of a national or universal injunction under federal law is a procedural matter that doesn’t necessarily fit neatly within ideological lines,” she said, pointing out criticism from both sides of the political spectrum regarding such injunctions.

King noted that since the court’s decisions pertain largely to universal injunctions, revisiting birthright citizenship could signal significant changes in legal standards. She indicated that as the details of enforcing the executive order remain vague, there’s still room for legal challenges. “In theory, lower courts might issue the same national injunction again, providing further justification for the 22 states involved,” she speculated.

The ruling in Trump vs. Casa was praised by several Alabama Republican leaders, including Senators Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville, as well as Representative Robert Adderholt and Attorney General Steve Marshall.

Vance discussed another notable case from the term: Medina vs. Planned Parenthood, where the Supreme Court ruled that women in South Carolina could not legally challenge the state for excluding planned parent-child relationships from Medicaid. “I see Medina as a kind of under-the-radar blockbuster from this term. It didn’t initially get much attention, but I think its ramifications will be felt for years,” she remarked.

Vance warned that states limiting abortion services might also impact other healthcare offerings, potentially reducing options for people on Medicaid. “These providers often serve low-income patients who may have no alternative,” she added. “It’s troubling to think these patients lose their right to choose providers, all while the Supreme Court removes legal avenues to address these issues.”

Vance expressed concern over the court’s ruling that South Carolina’s Medicaid policies didn’t infringe upon the rights of eligible providers. “This ruling reflects the Supreme Court’s peculiar approach to abortion law. It seems designed to limit access while complicating legal standards for women,” she said, noting that the ruling further entrenches cultural conflicts within legal frameworks.

Adderholt defended the Medina ruling, calling it a “victory for life and taxpayers,” arguing that public funds shouldn’t support organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Vance also highlighted an increasing reliance on the Supreme Court’s emergency dockets—what some, like law professor Steve Vladeck, call “shadow dockets.” “It’s not nefarious; it’s just an emergency mechanism for urgent legal issues,” she noted. However, she criticized how this has led to quicker decisions on cases that could benefit from more thorough examination.

As the discussion continued, panelists delved into other significant cases, including United States vs. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on hormonal treatments for transgender minors, and Mahmoud vs. Taylor, where the court favored Maryland parents advocating for the removal of an LGBTQ+ curriculum in schools.

“In essence, SB1 stripped away essential healthcare for a trans teenager and their family,” Wang pointed out, emphasizing the long deliberation these families underwent with their healthcare providers to determine necessary treatments.

Wang further highlighted that the same bill permits affirming treatments for minors aligned with their assigned gender. “This situation is a mitigated disaster at best. While discrimination against transgender individuals is complex, the court didn’t fully engage with these broader issues, leaving them for another day,” she added, suggesting that related cases advocating for transgender rights continue into the future.

Marshall lent support to the Skrmetti ruling, claiming that just a few years prior, gender-change procedures for minors were nearly unthinkable. “I applaud the state for affirming its responsibility to oversee medical regulations against ideologies not grounded in solid medical evidence,” he continued.

Meanwhile, Aderholt expressed his endorsement of the Mahmoud decision, asserting that recognizing parental rights is vital for both legal and religious freedoms. “This court decision upholds the fundamental rights of parents,” he wrote.