A Look At Monday's Supreme Court Decisions And What's Next

I'm Maureen Cavanaugh. It's Monday, June 27. On top story Midday Edition, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its last decisions of the term today and somewhat surprisingly for this a member court there were no ties. The biggest decision of the day was the overturning of a Texas abortion law, which required clinics to meet surgical center standards and clinic doctors to have admitting privileges to at nearby hospitals. The Texas requirement caused about half of the abortion clinics in that state to close. I spoke with Glenn Smith, professor of constitutional law at California Western School of Law. Welcome back.  Thank you.  What was the question the court was asked to rule on about the Texas abortion laws?  There were two basic questions. The bigger question that will have resident in all abortion regulation cases in the future is to what extent in trying to figure out whether the law is an undue burden should the decision-maker look at the medical justification for the law, how strong the justification is, how -- well does a lot achieve that or is none of that relevant to the question of undue burden? You just look at how much of an obstacle it will be to the woman seeking an abortion. The second question was under the relevant standard, does the Texas abortion law -- is unconstitutional because it is an undue burden and the court held yes it was.  The decision was 53 -- five have a big is a Texas law. The majority was written by Justice Stephen Breyer. Isn't Anthony Kennedy use in leasing as the swing vote these cases?  He has. It on a fully what to make of that. There was a technical civil procedure question based on the fact that there was a previous version of this case or iteration. Did anything that did not get the cited in the case prevent the spring confirmation that full merit of that case to the there may be more of a Justice Breyer issue than a Kennedy issue. Maybe that Justice Kennedy ultimately did not want to be the point person on it.  The dissenting opinions in this case where --  They were scathing although in a different sense. Justice Thomas took the job of arguing that the court was over protecting abortion rights and misinterpreting past presidents to the position he and justice Scalia really championed in past cases. Justice Alito and Roberts got on a dissenting opinion that really was much more about whether the court should have taken this case and decided the issues it did, whether it was properly evaluated and accused the court of judicial activism but more in the way they case handled the case.  This is just speculation. Do you think if justice and to done Scalia was still alive he might have influenced a different outcome in this case?  We always love to speculate about these cases and the things the behind the scenes. I don't think in this area the argument that Scalia could have changed minds are brought a fifth justice along to his side is very persuasive. After all, these justices have been through abortion issues for a long time. Their opinions about this are pretty well set. I think his presence might have made Justice Kennedy more uncomfortable in reaching the result he did. I don't think it would've produced a different outcome.  This is being called the most sweeping statement on abortion rights in more than 20 years. Why is that?  Although the court established 20 years ago that the proffered standard -- proper standard of review is an undue burden, abortion procedures were protected against state regulation more than other medical procedures, the specifics of how that standard gets applied were never very clear. The court had only decided to cases over the past 20 years. Those were in a different context of laws that ban a rarely used procedure call partial-birth abortion rather than what we have been seeing happening so much in the last three years, which is states making across-the-board regulations, allowing pre-liability abortions but putting significant regulations on them. Frankly, we did not know until the court ruled today how strict or generous it would be to states and what the relevant role of medical considerations was. That has all been clarified today.  To have a decisions came down from the court today. One is involving the federal corruption case against former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. What did the court decided that case of what happens now?  Let me take the second question first. The court found that for several reasons the jury instructions that were used to convict McDonald were prejudicial. The jury could have convicted for actions that did not under the statute amount to official corruption. It significantly, unanimously sent this case back for a new trial if the prosecutors choose to go forward with a new trial. The trial and conviction or vacated.  The court decided on a much narrower interpretation of quid pro quo when it comes to elected officials.  What it clearly did is drawn a line and say simply relying on the kind of general things politicians due to the people in touch with each other at center is not going to be sufficient for federal prosecution.  The court upheld that deny gun ownership two people convicted of domestic violence. Next October, still and eight member court?  Yes, think that is fair to say. There are some political savvy scenarios that say the Senate might quickly try to confirm a Merrick Garland during the lame-duck part if it doesn't think that direct -- the next would be central. None of it would happen before October. I think given in tragedy of this in on this nomination, it is very unlikely that they would be anything other than the current eight members on the court. When we get together for the first Monday in October.  I've been speaking with Glenn Smith, professor of constitutional law. Thank you.  You are very welcome.