First time poster here, making every attempt to follow the rules. TL;DR at the end.

Edit: Thanks to everyone for taking the time to make such thoughtful and insightful replies! And also I feel like an idiot for saying SC instead of SCOTUS through my whole post. I skipped lunch and I think my hunger made me forget there was an official acronym.

I've seen a lot of discussion in the past 24-36 hours related to the presidential election and the role abortion played in it. Some of the things I've seen have me doubting my understanding of how the Supreme Court works, specifically when it comes to Roe vs. Wade and later Dobbs overturning it. In particular, a lot of people seem to think that Dobbs explicitly gave the decision to the states and that's it, end of story, forever. That doesn't seem right, so if you'd indulge me here:

• Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion, to an extent, on the federal level because the SC at that time decided a state law violated what they felt was a constitutional right to privacy that included medical decisions like abortion, and thus struck down that law.
• Although that ruling was often described as "the law of the land", it wasn't in fact a law in the traditional sense. It was an opinion from the highest court that laws could not be enacted if they would violate what was held to be a constitutional right.
• In that regard, it wasn't so much that states couldn't pass a law restricting abortion access, but rather it wouldn't be worth attempting to because new laws would meet the same fate. (This is what happened in the Casey decision.)
• Then the makeup of the court changed, and Mississippi passed a law with the direct intention of getting the new SC to reconsider the previous decisions.
• It worked, and the Dobbs decision overturned the Roe decision based on the current SC's opinion that the Constitution actually does not grant the right to an abortion.
• Dobbs was also decided based on the current SC's feeling that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided in the first place, and that the Court did not have the authority to do what they did under those decisions.
• Dobbs "gave the decision back to the states" in the sense that it reset (more or less) what was in place before Roe - some state laws and some limited federal restrictions - plus allowed some states to enact trigger laws they'd kept waiting for such an occasion.
• But (this is the biggest piece I'm unsure on) despite returning it to the states, Dobbs does not actually go so far as to mandate that only individual states can ever legislate on abortion one way or another, or, in other words, the federal legislature has no authority to pass a federal law concerning the matter of abortion at all, ever.
• Even if Dobbs did say that, it would only be as permanent as the next case that would challenge that precedent, like we saw with Roe.

If I'm correct up to that point, from there I wonder: if Congress tried to pass a federal law either codifying abortion protections into law or banning abortion nationwide...

• They may have to be careful not to violate other SC decisions or actual parts of the Constitution if they want it to stand up to SC review, but Dobbs alone doesn't serve a means of preventing them doing so.
• Even if it was intended to, that assumes Congress would act in good faith and refrain from passing a knowingly unconstitutional law.
• If they wanted to pass an unconstitutional law, there aren't any procedural barriers to stop them.
• By virtue of the system of checks and balances, the mechanism for holding Congress accountable if they pass an unconstitutional law is the federal court system and ultimately the Supreme Court.
• In order for the SC to get involved, the law would have to first be challenged in court at the state level and work its way up through appeals.
• Even if it made it that far, the SC can decide they won't get involved, which could allow the law to be enacted if that's what the lower court had decided.
• Given that the current SC rulings are more aligned with one political ideology, wouldn't they be more likely to strike down or uphold a law on abortion based on whether or not it fits that ideology anyway?

TL;DR: I think Congress maintains the authority to at least attempt to pass a law on abortion. I think that potentially, even if they knew a law might be unconstitutional or directly violate a Supreme Court decision, they could try it anyway and maybe even get away with it. But for the sake of argument, did the Dobbs decision explicitly say that states alone have jurisdiction over abortion laws? Does that mean that Congress could not pass a law for the President to sign either codifying abortion access or banning it altogether? And even if it did say that, is there anything really stopping them from trying it anyway, especially since we've seen that Supreme Court precedent may not be as enduring as we once believed it to be?

Now that it seems clear that the GOP will have control of both the Presidency and the Senate for at least the next two years, it is obviously a strategically opportune time for the older GOP appointees to step down to be replaced by younger Justices. While Justice Thomas has stated on multiple occasions that he intends to die on the bench, which given his various other idiosyncrasies seems not at all unlikely, I think one doesn't need a crystal ball to predict that Justice Alito is going to step down relatively soonish. Given that prediction, which nominees do you think are likely to replace him and why? Who would be your preferred candidate?

Edit: While we're at it, what are the chances Roberts steps down?

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court orders/judgements involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts, though they may still be discussed here.

​

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- the name of the case / link to the ruling

- a brief summary or description of the questions presented

​

​

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank

Question presented to the Court:

Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners Facebook

Joint appendix

Brief of respondents Amalgamated Bank

Brief amicus curiae of United States

Reply of Facebook

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". All other rules apply as normal.

Starting this term, a live commentary thread will be available for each oral argument day and will host discussion on all cases being heard on that day.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera

Question presented to the Court:

Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners E.M.D. Sales

Brief amicus curiae of United States

Brief of respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera

Reply of petitioners E.M.D. Sales

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra

Question presented to the Court:

Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners Advocate Christ Medical Center

Brief of respondent Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Reply of petitioners Advocate Christ Medical Center

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". All other rules apply as normal.

Starting this term, a live commentary thread will be available for each oral argument day and will host discussion on all cases being heard on that day.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Ask Anything' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

​

​

• Simple, straight forward questions that could be resolved in a single response (E.g., "What is a GVR order?"; "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

​

• Lighthearted questions that would otherwise not meet our standard for quality. (E.g., "Which Hogwarts house would each Justice be sorted into?")

​

• Discussion starters requiring minimal context or input from OP (E.g., Polls of community opinions, "What do people think about [X]?")

​

​

Please note that although our quality standards are relaxed in this thread, our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., ex rel. Todd Heath

Question presented to the Court:

Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioner Wisconsin Bell, Inc.

Joint appendix

Brief of respondent United States, ex rel. Todd Heath

Brief amicus curiae of United StatesReply of petitioner Wisconsin Bell, Inc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". All other rules apply as normal.

Starting this term, a live commentary thread will be available for each oral argument day and will host discussion on all cases being heard on that day.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court orders/judgements involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts, though they may still be discussed here.

​

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- the name of the case / link to the ruling

- a brief summary or description of the questions presented

​

​

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Ask Anything' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

​

​

• Simple, straight forward questions that could be resolved in a single response (E.g., "What is a GVR order?"; "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

​

• Lighthearted questions that would otherwise not meet our standard for quality. (E.g., "Which Hogwarts house would each Justice be sorted into?")

​

• Discussion starters requiring minimal context or input from OP (E.g., Polls of community opinions, "What do people think about [X]?")

​

​

Please note that although our quality standards are relaxed in this thread, our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

There is a lot of talk over whether the Senate will override the filibuster in 2025 to create an abortion ban via legislation. I am unsure but it is something we'll have to see in 2025.

A lot of the pro life side have given up Congressionally and decided that the Supreme Court route makes more sense, but my question is how likely is it? We know they declined the case of the Rhode Island Catholic women arguing that legal abortion stripped their fetuses of personhood, so it's reasonably unlikely with the current court. I think it ultimately comes down to which justices Trump picks in his next term. I think if he picks 2+ justices to serve on the court it becomes a possibility.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court orders/judgements involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts, though they may still be discussed here.

​

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- the name of the case / link to the ruling

- a brief summary or description of the questions presented

​

​

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.