Samantha Warfel, Contributing Photographer
On Wednesday, the Buckley Institute hosted legal scholars Jennifer Mascott, associate professor of law at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, and Michael Moreland, university professor of law and religion at Villanova University, for its annual “Supreme Court Term Review.”
Buckley Institute is an organization that touts the advancement of “intellectual diversity and free speech at Yale” and is known for inviting prominent conservative speakers to campus. The talk, moderated by Buckley Institute Events Coordinator Jack Batten ’27, covered the most prominent rulings and related themes from the last Supreme Court term, including former President Donald Trump’s legal challenges and presidential immunity and the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturning the federal right to abortion.
“Getting the opportunity to look back at this year’s Supreme Court cases from the perspective of experts in the field was very enticing,” said William Barbee ’26. “[I was able to] ground my opinions in both the facts of the case and greater perspective of the case.”
Mascott spoke first on Trump’s ongoing criminal investigations. She believes that the sitting president should have some scope of presidential immunity to maintain the ability to carry out executive duties effectively.
The U.S. system is not built to undermine the position at the top of the executive ladder, according to Mascott, who emphasized the importance of the president’s ability to make executive decisions in emergency matters.
“I think, ironically, in some ways, presidents are actually too weak,” she said.
Mascott referenced the precedent from the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case in 1982, which held that a sitting president has absolute immunity from civil damages for official actions. However, she noted that the legal questions surrounding Trump’s case extend into the private sector, where immunity is less clearly defined. While the doctrine of immunity is not new, Mascott explained, the Trump-era cases present unprecedented challenges and questions about immunity.
Moreland, who specializes in bioethics law, discussed the fallout from the Dobbs decision in a post-Roe landscape. He explained how the ruling has returned much of the decision-making on abortion access to the states, with the Biden administration seeking to widen access through measures like advocating for access to mifepristone, a drug approved by the FDA for medical abortions.
“The lurking question [is] whether or not the FDA’s approval preempts or overrides state law and restrictions,” Moreland said.
When asked about how he envisioned abortion medications, like mifepristone, might be challenged, Moreland responded by saying that it would be difficult to identify an agency with standing to oppose the FDA’s approval.
Moreland also discussed additional implications, such as hospitals’ obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires them to stabilize patients in emergency situations, potentially including abortion care. He noted that in states like Idaho, where abortion is “effectively banned,” this creates a variety of legal challenges for healthcare providers.
“I was excited to hear about how the year went for the Supreme Court and about the cases that shape how Americans live,” Raja Saadiq-Saoud ’28 said after the event.
The Buckley Institute is located at 265 Church St.