Inside Justice Jackson's separate opinion in Idaho abortion ruling

All right, CBS News campaign reporter and attorney Katrina Kaufman is still still standing outside of the Supreme Court. Katrina, just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in. But I want to ask you about not just the big case that came down today. Tell us about tomorrow, the cases that we're still waiting on. And I'm still really hoping to get some insight into Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's dissent, why she felt compelled to explain in her dissent that the court was not living up to its responsibility. I'm glad that you brought that up because I think that her dissent brought up some really important points. You know, she concurred with this decision in the sense that it is now allowing Amtala, this federal law to take precedence over the state near total abortion ban in Idaho. But she dissented in the sense that she thinks the state or the court, sorry, really should have ruled on the merits in this case because the Supreme Court is just leaving this in limbo. And she said that the mechanism that they used to send it back down to the lower courts, it's known as a dig, is a tool that's not supposed to be used in cases where the court just doesn't want to make a decision on this issue ultimately. And I think the political consequences of this are very important because it now pushes this issue to potentially after the election when we could have a new administration, possibly under former President Donald Trump, where they could dismiss this lawsuit altogether or perhaps interpret this law, Amtala, in a different way. And so it really still leaves abortion rights in Idaho and all of these other states hanging in the balance. All right, Katrina, thank you so much. Maybe we'll check back in with you a little bit later before this hour's up. And if we do, we thank you. Let's bring in Steven Wormiel. He's a professor of practice at American University Washington College of Law. All right, professor. So let me get your reaction specifically to this Idaho decision. Well, I agree with Katrina that I think it what she was saying about Justice Jackson. This just puts the issue off for another day. What the court is essentially saying is we shouldn't have stepped in when we did. We should have let this proceed in the federal court in Idaho. And, and so it'll go back there. There's likely to be a trial again to to the earlier point, if there's a different president in the White House and they decide not to continue to push the federal law allowing emergency abortions, then all of this might go away and Idaho might be allowed to continue to enforce its law prohibiting most abortions. Let me also ask you, Professor, about this other ruling that has to deal with the environment and specifically the EPA. And it's sort of a broader question about the weakening of some of the federal agencies that were established to protect ordinary Americans. And specifically talking about the Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations like the SEC does feel as if the courts have successively weakened those institutions. Why do you think that's happening? I think it's been an agenda item for conservative justices and and conservative lawyers for a long time to try to curtail the power of federal agencies because they're, in their view, not elected, they're not sufficiently accountable and exercise too much power. And so I think that's coming to a head with two decisions today, one about the Securities and Exchange Commission and one about the Environmental Protection Agency. And I think we're going to see more of that. All right. Professor Stephen Warmiel, thank you very much for your insight, Sir. We appreciate it. Thank you.