The Supreme Court has had a busy week.

As always, the end of the Supreme Court’s term is one of the consequential times of the year. The past week has seen the release of several important decisions, many of which have been covered on Headline Prayer.

View Comments (12)

Let the IFA community know how to pray for you.

Yesterday, however, saw the end of many cases that intercessors have been praying about. The Supreme Court released three decisions, tackling the administrative state, the J6 prosecutions, and homeless encampments. And intercessor, we are pleased to announce that God has heard and answered our prayers in each one of these cases.

Here are the decisions that came out yesterday:

Stripping the Administrative State

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, has overturned the Chevron deference, a judicial doctrine that allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes they administer. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Established in the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the doctrine required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes unless Congress explicitly stated otherwise. Conservatives argued that this doctrine contributed to the expansion of government power and allowed unelected regulators too much influence over policy.

The ruling came from two cases, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where fishing companies challenged a rule requiring them to pay for monitors on their vessels. The companies argued that Chevron deference undermined judicial responsibility and constitutional principles by reallocating interpretive authority from courts to agencies.

A Victory for J6 Protestors

The Supreme Court has restricted the Justice Department’s use of an Enron-era obstruction of justice statute to prosecute certain participants in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. This decision, involving a Pennsylvania man, could impact numerous other cases, including one against former President Donald Trump.

The 2002 law, initially aimed at tampering with evidence following the Enron scandal, is now limited in scope. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that Congress did not intend for the statute to be a broad tool for prosecuting various forms of misconduct. The ruling, supported by a mix of conservative and liberal justices, requires that prosecutors prove interference with specific types of evidence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, arguing that the case in question involved clear obstruction.

Attorney General Merrick Garland noted that most January 6 defendants would not be affected by this decision and that the Justice Department would adjust as necessary.

Giving Power Back to Cities

The Supreme Court has eased restrictions on city officials dealing with homeless encampments, overturning a lower court ruling that deemed it unconstitutional to penalize people for sleeping in public when no alternative shelter is available. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments does not limit governmental responses to homelessness. He emphasized the complexity of homelessness and the variety of public policy responses needed. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Gorsuch.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, highlighting that sleep is a biological necessity and should not be criminalized. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her dissent.

The case originated from Grants Pass, Oregon, where an ordinance banned public sleeping even with a blanket, despite the lack of available shelters. This ruling overturns a 2018 appeals-court decision that found such ordinances effectively criminalized homelessness.

Major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco supported Grants Pass’s appeal, arguing they need more flexibility to address encampments. Homeless advocates and liberal-leaning states argued the lower-court ruling only targeted extreme antihomeless laws and that cities were overstating the ruling’s impact. The Biden administration also supported reining in the lower-court precedent.

Are you encouraged by these rulings? Share these answered prayers with your friends and family!

(Photo Credit: Supreme Court by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash)