The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has issued three decisions this month, prompting many to say that the current justices are choosing corporations over people. The conservative-dominated court has consistently (specifically during Trump’s second term) sided with the administration. Forcing us to wonder if the highest court in the land, created to ensure the Constitution and democracy are supposedly upheld, has been compromised.
The three decisions that have been made this month will greatly impact present and future immigrants, cancer victims, and gun control.
1. What Does “In” The United States Mean
In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS has redefined what it means to be considered physically inside the United States. According to United States law, any person who is physically present in the United States or who “arrives” at the border must be given an opportunity to seek asylum.
In recent years, however, US border patrol agents have turned away thousands of people who come to ports of entry seeking protection, including through a practice known as “metering.” Even though officials have issued pleas to asylum seekers to go to ports of entry and request asylum, rather than crossing the border between the ports of entry to ask for asylum.
The practice of Metering was halted in 2021. President Donald Trump sought a ruling validating it as legal and that it should be reinstated. A divided appeals court ruled in 2024 that the current United States law (regarding what “physical present inside the country” means) applies to potential asylum seekers at ports of entry, regardless of which side of the border they are standing on. The President had an issue with this and brought it to the Supreme Court, where they agreed with Trump’s rejection.
2. Monsanto Will Not Be Held Liable in Today’s SCOTUS Decision
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto, the very controversial agricultural products and chemicals company, cannot be held liable under state laws for failing to warn consumers on its label about the alleged cancer risks of its weedkiller, Roundup. In the case of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the court ruled 7-2.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2019 when Missouri gardener, John Durnell, was one of over 100,000 people across the country who had sued Monsanto and alleged that the key ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, caused them to develop cancer. Durnell said he had been exposed to Roundup for more than 20 years and that the product led him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
Because the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has evaluated whether glyphosate-based pesticides pose adverse health risks to humans, including cancer risks, and has deemed Roundup safe to use, the herbicide’s label does not include a cancer warning.
However, a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. The EPA evaluated again in both 2019 and 2020 after these findings and still determined Roundup safe to use as directed and classified the chemical as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
3. Wilford vs. Lopez
The SCOTUS was busy today. Another controversial decision (voted 6-3) concerned gun laws. The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law that banned guns on private property open to the public where the owner hadn’t explicitly condoned the carrying of firearms.
Calling the law unconstitutional. Justice Ketanji Jackson (who voted against the order alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan) delivered her dissenting opinion that was included in the 76-page opinions section on the SCOTUS blog. She compared this decision to the Black Code laws of 1865.
What Does This All Mean
Immigrant rights groups have strongly voiced their opposition to today’s metering decision. They warn that the decision undermines decades of asylum practice and risks leaving vulnerable people stranded in danger. The Monsanto ruling holds that Monsanto is not liable for the cancer-causing agent in Roundup.
This protects corporations at the expense of everyday users. This decision will significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles, and it closes the door on those negatively impacted by pesticides.
As for the Hawaii law, allowing banned guns on private property open to the public where the owner hadn’t explicitly condoned the carrying of firearms doesn’t sound like the right move for a country that has a mass shooting, seemingly, every other day.
Furthermore, does the 2nd amendment override an individual’s personal rights? This article on the SCOTUS blog about the law reads, “Supreme Court appears sympathetic to gun owners’ challenge to Hawaii law.” But “appears sympathetic” is an understatement when considering this recent decision, and the lack of gun control in the United States.
