WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, April 25

Today is the last day of scheduled oral arguments for the 2023-24 term. At 10 a.m. EDT, the justices will hear oral argument in Trump v. United States. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Supreme Court tackles Trump’s broad claim of presidential immunity in election interference case (Lawrence Hurley & Ryan J. Reilly, NBC News)
• What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity (Eric Tucker, The Associated Press)
• In Immunity Case, Trump Can Lose in Ways That Amount to a Win (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Two big court dates for Donald Trump, but he can attend only one (Kyle Cheney & Josh Gerstein, Politico)
• Justice Alito Voices Support for Fetal Rights in Federal Law (Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law)

Advocates in Conversation

Richard Bernstein on the impact of Jan. 6 at the court

In this video, Nate Mowry interviews attorney Richard Bernstein. Bernstein filed “friend of the court” briefs on the behalf of current and former government officials in Fischer v. United States and Trump v. United States. He speaks on the impact of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol on the legal system and the country at large.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, April 24

At 10 a.m. EDT, the justices will hear oral argument in Moyle v. U.S. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• US Supreme Court leans toward Starbucks in the case of pro-union workers (Andrew Chung & John Kruzel, Reuters)
• Supreme Court likely to side with Starbucks, curtail labor board authority (Lauren Kaori Gurley, The Washington Post)
• What’s at stake as the Supreme Court hears Idaho case about abortion in emergencies (Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR)
• What to know in the Supreme Court case about immunity for former President Trump (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)
• Supreme Court rejects challenge to vote-by-mail restrictions in Texas (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Justices dubious about dismissing suits while waiting for arbitration

Monday’s argument in Smith v. Spizziri was this month’s case under the Federal Arbitration Act. This one explores what a trial court can do when it refers a pending suit to arbitration. Section 3 of the FAA says that if the court refers the case to arbitration, it “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” The question is whether the trial court, instead of staying the action, can go ahead and dismiss it entirely.

The argument included a fair amount of questioning about the text. For example, early in Daniel Geyser’s argument (arguing for a stay rather than dismissal), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out that the statute says “stay the ‘trial,’” and commented that “you would have an easier case if it said stay the ‘proceeding’ or stay the ‘action.’ … You want us to interpret it to be ‘proceeding’ or ‘action,’ but that’s not exactly what it says.”

On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Joshua Rosenkranz (arguing for dismissal as an alternative to a stay) forcefully on her reading of the text.

CASE PREVIEW

Supreme Court to hear emergency abortion dispute out of Idaho

Less than a month after the justices heard oral arguments in a case seeking to roll back access to one of the drugs used in medication abortions, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in another case involving abortion. At issue in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States is whether emergency rooms in Idaho can provide abortions to pregnant women in an emergency. The Biden administration contends that a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act can in some narrow circumstances trump a state law that criminalizes most abortions in the state. The state rejects the government’s interpretation of EMTALA as “an exercise of raw executive power,” while its Republican legislature condemns it as “an intolerable federal power grab.” They counter that the law does not require physicians to provide specific medical treatments, much less requires hospitals to perform abortions.

The case before the court on Wednesday began nearly two years ago in a federal court in Idaho. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, the Biden administration argued that EMTALA – which requires emergency rooms that participate in Medicare to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” – supersedes an Idaho law that makes it a crime to provide an abortion except in a handful of narrow circumstances, including to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.