A high court decision in favor of Idaho is not just a disaster for reproductive health, it puts at risk the federal government's ability to set national environmental, labor and consumer protection standards.
The trouble is, they WON'T in fact adopt any unambiguous "standard" for when preemption applies and when it doesn't. For example, if states enact "state single payer", we CANNOT confidently assume that the supremes won't allow corporate lawfare to undermine and torpedo them, based on "federal preemptions", such as claims that states cannot limit care under such systems to their residents, as such corporate interests will assuredly do. Instead, the reactionary supermajority will continue doing what they have already been doing across the board: using a combination of "shadow docket" rulings and novel new, ad hoc "doctrines", like Kavanaugh's infamous "major questions", or "nondelegation", or "First Amendment Lochnerization", and on and on, to construct a patchwork quilt finely tuned to entrench corporate power über alles.
If my state does something this stupid I will have my excuse to retire early from medical practice
The trouble is, they WON'T in fact adopt any unambiguous "standard" for when preemption applies and when it doesn't. For example, if states enact "state single payer", we CANNOT confidently assume that the supremes won't allow corporate lawfare to undermine and torpedo them, based on "federal preemptions", such as claims that states cannot limit care under such systems to their residents, as such corporate interests will assuredly do. Instead, the reactionary supermajority will continue doing what they have already been doing across the board: using a combination of "shadow docket" rulings and novel new, ad hoc "doctrines", like Kavanaugh's infamous "major questions", or "nondelegation", or "First Amendment Lochnerization", and on and on, to construct a patchwork quilt finely tuned to entrench corporate power über alles.