Live updates: Supreme Court decides EPA, Purdue bankruptcy, SEC cases, but leaves Trump immunity for another day

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued four significant rulings, overturning a controversial Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits. It also ruled against in-house Securities and Exchange Commission tribunals, blocked an Environmental Protection Agency air-quality initiative while appeals continue and formally issued a decision allowing emergency abortions in Idaho while that case makes its way through the courts. Other decisions, including whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in his federal election-interference case, remain to be issued, and the court — which usually winds up its term in June — will be continuing into July.

Here’s what to know

• Other cases still pending include whether it is legal to ban homeless encampments and whether states such as Florida and Texas can restrict social media platforms from removing content.
• We’re tracking the biggest cases of the term — both decided and undecided. Take a look.
• The Idaho abortion ruling was accidentally posted on the high court’s website a day before it was issued, which is extremely rare. The momentous decision overturning Roe v. Wade, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was also made public early, in that case through a leak to the news organization Politico.

11:13 AM: Purdue Pharma victims advocate urges need to compensate victims

After the Supreme Court’s decision that blocked a proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan, a new settlement will have to be negotiated as part of the drugmaker’s ongoing bankruptcy case.

Individual victims had been slated to get up to $750 million, or between $3,500 to $48,000 per claim — a plan that divided families of those suffering from addiction and who lost loved ones from overdoses.

Ryan Hampton, a prominent victims advocate who helped craft the previous plan, said state attorneys general need to ensure that “the victims cannot be cut out of the deal when this is renegotiated.”

Ed Bisch, who lost his son to an overdose and opposed the deal, expressed relief at the opinion, calling Thursday a “good day for justice.” He runs a group called Relatives Against Purdue Pharma.

Hampton and Bisch both called on the Justice Department to prosecute members of the Sackler family, who own the company and had sought civil immunity from opioid lawsuits as part of the bankruptcy deal.

Sackler family members have long denied personal responsibility.

By: David Ovalle

10:54 AM: Analysis from Tobi Raji, Reporter covering the federal judiciary and Supreme Court

Before adjourning court for the day, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not make an announcement as to whether Friday is the final opinion day.

It looks like we’ll have more decisions next week, as well.

10:53 AM: SEC tribunal ruling shows starkly different views of federal agency power

Writing for the majority in SEC v. Jarkesy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a defendant facing a fraud suit has “the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch.”

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned of a “massive sea change” for federal agencies.

“The constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress,” wrote Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Rather than acknowledge the earthshattering nature of its holding, the majority has tried to disguise it.”

By: Ann E. Marimow

10:50 AM: EPA says ruling against pollution plan could result in more premature deaths

An EPA spokesman said the agency is “disappointed” in the ruling in Ohio v. EPA, which blocked its plan to curb downwind industrial air pollution.

The spokesman, Timothy Carroll, said the decision could result in more premature deaths and other health effects from air pollution. “EPA projected the final Good Neighbor Plan would prevent 1,300 premature deaths, avoid over 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits, reduce millions of cases of asthma symptoms and avoid hundreds of thousands of missed school days and tens of thousands of missed workdays,” he said in a statement.

Carroll added that the agency believes the plan "is firmly grounded in its Clean Air Act authority and looks forward to defending the merits of this vital public health protection before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

By: Maxine Joselow

10:43 AM: Gorsuch says EPA ‘sidestepped’ concerns about pollution-cutting initiative

In Ohio v. EPA, the states of Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, and other groups, argued that an Environmental Protection Agency plan to reduce pollution was unworkable and illegal, would require industries to spend billions for upgrades, and could even lead to power and heating shortages by forcing plants to shutter.

The EPA contended that those concerns were unfounded and said the plan is critical for the health of residents in downwind states, particularly the young and elderly, who are susceptible to asthma, emphysema and other lung diseases exacerbated by ground-level ozone, the main component of smog.

In their ruling, most of the court’s conservatives, led by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, rejected the EPA’s contention. “Put simply, EPA’s response did not address the applicants’ concern so much as sidestep it,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

By: Justin Jouvenal

10:30 AM: Analysis from Maxine Joselow, Reporter focusing on climate change and environment

The decision in Ohio v. EPA deals yet another blow to the Biden administration’s ambitious environmental agenda. The Supreme Court has already struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules on climate change and water pollution.

Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented against Thursday’s ruling, joined by the court’s liberals.

10:28 AM: Analysis from Ann E. Marimow, Supreme Court correspondent

And the fourth ruling of the day is the Idaho emergency-abortion ruling that was inadvertently posted yesterday. The Supreme Court allows — for now — emergency abortions to stabilize patients in Idaho, despite the state’s strict abortion ban. The high court ruling applies while litigation in the matter continues.

10:27 AM: Analysis from David Ovalle, National reporter focusing on opioids and addiction

Edward Neiger, who represents thousands of victims who stood to benefit from the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement that the Supreme Court blocked, called the decision “a major setback for the families who lost loves ones to overdose and for those still struggling with addiction.” In a statement, he said that “victims have been abandoned by every branch of the government.”

10:24 AM: Analysis from Washington Post staff

We are now awaiting a fourth ruling, which will be the last of the day. More coming tomorrow.

10:20 AM: Analysis from Washington Post staff

The decision in SEC v. Jarkesy is a significant win for conservatives, who have long been chipping away at the power of regulatory agencies and the so-called administrative state.

10:17 AM: Analysis from Ann E. Marimow, Supreme Court correspondent

The third decision of the day is from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., on in-house judges for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

With the liberals dissenting, the court ruled that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial.

10:17 AM: Analysis from David Ovalle, National reporter focusing on opioids and addiction

The Purdue Pharma decision was 5-4, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.

Kavanaugh, who along with Roberts is a conservative, writes in dissent: “The decision is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families.”

10:12 AM: Analysis from Ann E. Marimow, Supreme Court correspondent

The second ruling is on Harrington v. Purdue Pharma. The high court is reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, blocking a controversial bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.

10:07 AM: Analysis from Maxine Joselow, Reporter focusing on climate change and environment

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court stayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, which is meant to reduce harmful industrial pollution that blows across state lines. This comes after the court struck down another major EPA rule in 2022.

10:04 AM: Analysis from Justin Jouvenal, Reporter covering the Supreme Court

The first ruling is in Ohio v. EPA, which weighed the legality of a major federal initiative to improve public health by reducing smog-forming pollution from power plants and factories that blows across state lines.

10:00 AM: Analysis from Ann E. Marimow, Supreme Court correspondent

We’ll be getting our first opinion soon. The court put out two boxes of printed rulings this morning, which means it will be releasing up to four opinions. We will see if one of them is the emergency abortion case, which was prematurely posted on the court’s website Wednesday.

9:57 AM: Posting of draft opinion on abortion was a rare gaffe

The Supreme Court accidentally posted a draft of a major opinion on abortion Wednesday, before quickly removing it from its website. That set off a scramble by journalists to report on the highly anticipated decision.

Opinions have been leaked from the court periodically over the decades — including the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 — but Wednesday’s gaffe is far more rare.

The Washington Post was able to find only one other similar example. In 2011, the ABA Journal reported that the court accidentally posted an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan and other details of cases it was going to hear.

By: Justin Jouvenal

9:50 AM: Justices again decided a case by ruling the litigants lack standing

Live updates: Supreme Court decides EPA, Purdue bankruptcy, SEC cases, but leaves Trump immunity for another day

Multiple times this term, the Supreme Court has decided a case not on the merits, but by concluding that those bringing the lawsuit do not have the legal standing to do so.

The latest example was Wednesday, when the justices rejected a Republican-led effort to sharply restrict White House officials and other federal employees from pressuring social media companies to remove posts from their platforms that the U.S. government deems problematic. In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the states and individuals could not show they were directly harmed by the communication between federal officials and social media platforms.

The justices took a similar approach in their ruling on access to the abortion medication mifepristone.

By: Ann E. Marimow

9:42 AM: In the spotlight over ethics, Justice Thomas lashed out in recent speech

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and wife Virginia “Ginni” Thomas arrive for a state dinner with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and President Donald Trump at the White House on Sept. 20, 2019.

Last month, at a judicial conference in Alabama, Justice Clarence Thomas forcefully pushed back at those who have criticized his judicial decisions, his wife’s political activism and his acceptance of lavish gifts from a billionaire.

“What you are going to find, especially in Washington, is that people are going to pride themselves on being awful,” Thomas said during the hour-long conversation with U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a former clerk of his. “It’s a hideous place.”

Read the full story

By: Justin Jouvenal, Tobi Raji and Ann E. Marimow

9:36 AM: Separate opinions in a single case may be slowing the court’s pace

The justices have saved an unusually large number of high-profile cases for the final days of the term. One indication of what’s possibly behind the sluggish pace came last week.

The vote in the court’s ruling to uphold a federal ban on firearms for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders was 8-1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion that spanned just 18 pages.

However, five other justices in the majority chose to write separately, including all three justices nominated by Donald Trump.

In addition, Justice Clarence Thomas penned a 32-page dissent.

While the majority said it was trying to provide clarity for lower courts assessing the validity of other gun-related laws, the multiple separate opinions from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson show a variety of views and unresolved differences.

By: Ann E. Marimow

9:30 AM: Early posting of abortion ruling was ‘inadvertent,’ spokeswoman says

It is extremely rare for a Supreme Court ruling to be posted on the court’s website before the ruling is issued. A court spokeswoman said Wednesday that the premature posting of a decision on emergency abortions, captured by a reporter for Bloomberg, was accidental. She cautioned that no ruling had been released.

“The Court’s Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court’s website,” spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement. “The Court’s opinion in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States will be issued in due course.”

By: Ann E. Marimow

9:28 AM: Read our tracker to learn about the major cases of this term

(Chloe Cushman for The Washington Post)

Here’s what you need to know about the biggest cases still to be announced this term, including Donald Trump’s immunity, Jan. 6 riot charges, downwind smog pollution and Securities and Exchange Commission tribunals. And below that, the more significant decisions of the term so far, from abortion pills to South Carolina voting maps to guns for suspected domestic abusers.

By: Ann E. Marimow and Tobi Raji

9:25 AM: Decided Wednesday: White House contacts with social media firms

A smartphone and a computer screen displaying the logos of the Instagram app and its parent company Meta. (Photo by Lionel BONAVENTURE / AFP) (Photo by LIONEL BONAVENTURE/AFP via Getty Images)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to sharply restrict White House officials and other federal employees from pressuring social media companies to remove posts from their platforms that the U.S. government deems problematic, saying the challengers did not have legal standing to bring the case.

Read the full story

By: Ann E. Marimow and Cat Zakrzewski