If you were a Supreme Court justice, how would you decide this case? Use existing Supreme Court precedent to justify how you would rule on the jurisdiction stripping law passed by Congress. Use existing precedent to justify your answer.

Utah v. Shildon

On January 3, 2023, Representatives Matt Gross and William Landry introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that would bar federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from citing a number of the Court’s decisions on abortion rights “for the purpose of precedent.” In particular, the Gross/Landry bill bars federal courts from citing Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v.
Casey in any case or controversy that focuses on a woman’s right to choose an abortion on demand or on restrictions thereof. The bill cites Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to restrict the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as legal justification for Congress’s power to regulate rules of precedent. The House passed the bill by a party line vote of 240 to 195; the Senate passed it in the same way (51 to 49), and the president signed it into law on July 1, 2018.
At the beginning of the 2023 Court term, a case emanating from the Kansas Supreme Court, Utah v. Shildon, made its way to the docket. The case involves a state law that made it illegal for any doctor to perform an abortion after a heartbeat is detected in a fetus. After the 8″ circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. When it took it up, the justices knew they had to deal with the Gross/Landry law as a threshold question before reaching the merits.