Capitol News

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliver rulings on a range of significant cases this June, addressing issues such as social media regulation, government agency authority, environmental regulation, homelessness rights, drug company influence, and abortion access. These decisions could have widespread implications for both governmental institutions and individual lives.

Michigan State University (MSU) has experts available to comment on the potential impacts of these rulings from various perspectives.

**Social Media Regulation**

Nancy Costello, an associate clinical professor at MSU’s College of Law and director of the First Amendment Clinic and Free Expression Online Library and Resource Center, discusses NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice. "NetChoice is a coalition of social media companies that challenged laws in Florida and Texas regulating content moderation," she said. "The task of the Court is difficult as it must determine what practices by social media companies are protected by the First Amendment."

Anjana Susarla, Omura-Saxena Professor in Responsible AI at MSU's Broad College of Business, comments on Murthy v. Missouri: "A significant percentage of the U.S. population turns to social media for health information. Responsible content moderation policies are necessary to ensure that platforms do not unintentionally magnify unsubstantiated medical information."

**Government Authority**

Jordan Cash, assistant professor at James Madison College, addresses Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: "This case could be the most consequential in administrative law in 40 years due to its challenge to 'Chevron deference,' which affects how courts evaluate government agency interpretations of congressional statutes."

Robert Wahl, assistant professor in MSU's Charles Stewart Mott Department of Public Health, speaks on Ohio v. EPA: "EPA rules limiting nitrogen dioxide emissions are crucial for reducing ozone levels that exacerbate asthma and COPD symptoms."

**Homelessness Rights**

Deyánira Nevarez Martínez, assistant professor in Urban and Regional Planning at MSU’s School of Planning, Design and Construction, discusses City of Grants Pass v. Johnson: "Local enforcement of anti-homeless ordinances often intensifies the plight of the unhoused rather than resolving it."

**Health Access and Care**

Cara Poland, associate professor at MSU’s College of Human Medicine, comments on Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.: "Purdue Pharma should be held accountable for its role in the opioid crisis."

Sean Valles, professor at MSU’s Center for Bioethics and Social Justice, addresses Idaho v. U.S.: "Federal law mandates emergency medical care regardless of hospital administrators' or politicians' views on abortion."

Valles also discusses Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: "Restricting mifepristone would force patients seeking abortions to use less safe alternatives or undergo more invasive procedures."

For further insights into these cases from MSU experts:

- Nancy Costello (ncostello@law.msu.edu)

- Anjana Susarla (asusarla@broad.msu.edu)

- Jordan Cash (cashjor1@msu.edu)

- Robert Wahl (wahlr@msu.edu)

- Deyánira Nevarez Martínez (nevarez1@msu.edu)

- Cara Poland (polandc2@msu.edu)

- Sean Valles (valles@msu.edu)