A week after the November 3 presidential election, the court will hear arguments in an attempt by the Trump administration and Republican-led states to overturn the era’s health care law Obama. Amid the coronavirus pandemic, coverage for more than 20 million people is on the line, along with a legal ban on insurance discrimination against Americans with pre-existing health conditions.
A more conservative court might be seen as more supportive of overturning the Affordable Care Act, but the court could still choose not to. Judges have less drastic options. For example, they could invalidate Obamacare’s now toothless requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance and leave basic provisions in place, such as subsidized health insurance, expansion of Medicaid, and protection. people with medical problems.
WATCH | Trump officially appoints Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court:
Now that former President Barack Obama’s historic law is over 10 years old, its many provisions are fully integrated into the health care system. Unraveling it would be a colossal undertaking, full of political risks.
Trump promised, but never delivered, a replacement.
Trump has said he wants Ginsburg’s replacement confirmed in the Supreme Court before election day so that a full court can rule on any campaign-related disputes.
Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, he predicted that the election “will end in the Supreme Court”, adding: “I think it is important that we have nine judges”. The 2016 election was held with just eight judges on the bench, however, after Republicans refused to hold hearings on Obama’s candidate to replace the late judge Antonin Scalia.
It is possible that a decisive matter for the elections arrives in the judges’ rounds, as was done in the 2000 election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. And the Liberals fear that a court with three people appointed by Trump could favor him in a dispute with Democratic candidate Joe Biden.
But even if a decisive election question doesn’t arrive at the judges’ doors, they have already weighed in on electoral changes states have made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. And other pre-election challenges are likely to come. So far this year, the court has blocked other courts from changing the rules in the run-up to elections.
Abortion rights advocates seem to face insurmountable odds of winning the Supreme Court without Ginsburg.
Earlier this year, a divided court struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reaffirming a commitment to abortion rights. It was the first major abortion case for Trump’s presidency.
The 5-4 result turned on the vote for Roberts, who joined his four more liberal colleagues, including Ginsburg. The court considered a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals. The judges ruled that the law violated the rights established by Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a national right to abortion.
WATCH | Barrett Pick is hosting “the most controversial battle of all time,” says a legal expert:
But Roberts’ vote was about following a judicial precedent rather than supporting the right to abortion. If a Trump candidate replaces Ginsburg, the chief justice’s vote on the issue would likely become less decisive. And adding another Tory vote would likely prompt states to test the limits of the regulations.
Already, cases are directed to court, which would provide an opportunity to overturn or weaken Roe. v Wade. These cases involve sweeping bans on abortions after six weeks or eight weeks of pregnancy.
The Supreme Court has been hesitant for years to take on new gun rights cases, but that could change under a more conservative court.
Last year, with two Trump judges on board, the Supreme Court handled its first major gun rights case in nearly a decade. But the case ended when the judges bypassed any major decision.
Gun rights advocates had hoped the court could use the New York case to develop landmark decisions that established a Second Amendment right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. Instead, judges ultimately dismissed the case, citing changes in city restrictions and state law.
However, three members of the court dissented, expressing concern that the lower federal courts were not properly implementing the two court rulings on gun rights of 2008 and 2010. Judge Brett Kavanaugh , who was among the judges who agreed the case should be dismissed, shared the concern, saying the court should address the matter soon.
After the president began pulling the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, more than a dozen governors, mostly Democrats, were themselves part of the fight against fossil fuel emissions that change the climate
A more conservative Supreme Court could condemn these ongoing efforts, California Governor Gavin Newsom said this week. He said he was “deeply concerned about what a 6-3 ideological majority on the tribunal might mean for this conversation.”
But the result of the presidential election is also important in this area. A Biden administration could reverse many of the Trump administration’s dozens of setbacks, weakening or eliminating many protections for air and water, as well as people and wildlife.
So far, federal courts have rejected many of the cancellations. Lawyers for environmental groups say if Trump wins a second term and the composition of the Supreme Court changes dramatically, they might be less likely to win if cases ultimately go to that end.