download journey 3 from the earth to the moon

Letterboxd — Your life in film

Forgotten username or password ?

• Start a new list…
• Add all films to a list…
• Add all films to watchlist

Add to your films…

Press Tab to complete, Enter to create

A moderator has locked this field.

Add to lists

Where to watch

Journey 3: from the earth to the moon.

Sean and Hank go on their biggest adventure yet, to the moon.

Releases by Date

28 nov 2019, releases by country.

More at TMDb Report this page

Popular reviews

Review by toby

this film definitely came out u just didn't notice

Review by AashirFart ★★★★★

This was the best goddamn movie I’ve ever seen

Select your preferred backdrop

Select your preferred poster.

Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon (2019)

• AllMovie Rating 1
• User Ratings ( 0 )
• Your Rating
• User Reviews ↓
• Related ↓

Join or Sign In

Sign in to customize your TV listings

By joining TV Guide, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy .

• TV Listings
• Cast & Crew

Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon - Full Cast & Crew

• Action & Adventure
• Watchlist Where to Watch

Sean and Hank go on their biggest adventure yet, to the moon.

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

From the Earth to the Moon

• TV Mini Series

Dramatized portrayal of the Apollo manned space program. Dramatized portrayal of the Apollo manned space program. Dramatized portrayal of the Apollo manned space program.

• Nick Searcy
• 80 User reviews
• 7 Critic reviews
• 22 wins & 33 nominations total

Episodes 12

• Self - Host …

• Deke Slayton

• Emmett Seaborn

• Frank Borman

• Gene Cernan

• Chris Kraft

• Gerry Griffin

• Thomas Stafford …

• James McDivitt …

• Michael Collins

• Roger Chaffee

• Dick Gordon

• Susan Borman
• All cast & crew
• Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

• Trivia The lunar excursion module (LEM) seen in several episodes up close, is in fact a real lunar module. It was originally scheduled to go to the Moon as part of the Apollo 18 flight; NASA budget cuts forced Apollo 18's cancellation, but the LEM was saved and eventually used in filming this miniseries. It is now enshrined in a museum. In some episodes, we can see a bus-like craft which takes the astronauts from NASA down to the pad at Cape Kennedy just prior to launch. This bus is also the real thing, which the real astronauts all used.
• Goofs In the first episode there is a scene that shows a Navy ship, the ship shown is a Ticonderoga class cruiser, the Navy commissioned the first one, the USS Ticonderoga (CG 47), on Jan. 22, 1983.

Clinton Anderson : [at the senate inquiry following the Apollo 1 fire] Colonel, what caused the fire? I'm not talking about wires and oxygen. It seems that some people think that NASA pressured North American to meet unrealistic and arbitrary deadlines and that in turn North American allowed safety to be compromised.

Frank Borman : I won't deny there's been pressure to meet deadlines, but safety has never been intentionally compromised.

Clinton Anderson : Then what caused the fire?

Frank Borman : A failure of imagination. We've always known there was the possibility of fire in a spacecraft. But the fear was that it would happen in space, when you're 180 miles from terra firma and the nearest fire station. That was the worry. No one ever imagined it could happen on the ground. If anyone had thought of it, the test would've been classified as hazardous. But it wasn't. We just didn't think of it. Now who's fault is that? Well, it's North American's fault. It's NASA's fault. It's the fault of every person who ever worked on Apollo. It's my fault. I didn't think the test was hazardous. No one did. I wish to God we had.

• Alternate versions For the DVD release, the series was cropped slightly at the top and bottom of the frame. This was done to create a presentation that would be enhanced for viewing on widescreen television sets.
• Connections Edited into Race for Space (2010)

User reviews 80

• Jul 19, 2004
• How many seasons does From the Earth to the Moon have? Powered by Alexa
• April 5, 1998 (United States)
• United States
• De la Tierra a la Luna
• DeLand, Florida, USA
• Clavius Base
• Go Flight Inc.
• Imagine Entertainment
• See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

• Runtime 53 minutes
• Black and White

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed.

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

From the Earth to the Moon

Audio with external links item preview.

Share or Embed This Item

Flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

467,297 Views

34 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

In collections.

Uploaded by librivoxbooks on April 20, 2007

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Screen Rant

Dwayne johnson confirms that journey 3 isn't happening.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Mark Wahlberg's New Movie Is What The Sequel To Keanu Reeves' 95% Rotten Tomatoes Hit Should've Been

Paul atreides' story may never be finished, despite denis villeneuve's dune 3 plans (& that's ok), why taggart wasn't in beverly hills cop 3.

Dwayne Johnson has finally confirmed that there will not be a follow-up to Journey 2: The Mysterious Island , and that the intended plot would have been based on another Jules Verne inspired story. The Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle star directly responded to a fan of the franchise on social media, and he categorically stated that he was no longer involved with any plans for future installments. This would seem to indicate that the surprisingly successful Journey 2 will be the last entry and that the previously announced Journey 3 is now officially canned.

Journey to the Center of the Earth was a modern reinterpretation of the Verne classic novel that debuted in theaters in 2008. It starred Brendan Fraser ( The Mummy ) and was the directorial debut for visual effects maestro Eric Brevig ( The Maze Runner ). Despite some mixed reviews, the family adventure made a worldwide gross of $241m from a $60m budget. Due to scheduling conflicts, Fraser was unable to return for a sequel, and so Johnson took the lead role for Journey 2 . Released in 2012, the sequel maintained the Verne connection by being loosely based on his novel The Mysterious Island , and also referencing the books as part of the plot. A surprising box office hit, the film garnered a global gross of $335m from a budget of $79m. It confirmed Johnson's stature as a leading actor and grew his reputation as a 'franchise-saver'. Not unexpectedly,  there was soon talk of another sequel .

RELATED: 15 Movies Dwayne Johnson Is Starring In

However six years later and with no definitive news on Journey 3 , one fan of the franchise asked Johnson on Twitter if we would ever see the film. Ever approachable and responsive to his fans, the ex-wrestler responded with the following reply;

The response isn't entirely unexpected. Due to the success of Journey 2 , Johnson was soon tapped to be in talks for a third film and his second as the lead. It was then announced in 2014 that there would in fact be two follow-ups, with Journey 3 and Journey 4 being filmed back-to-back . The director would be Brad Peyton, who shot Journey 2 , with The Rock returning for both stories. However, following that report the franchise never strayed from the development stages and no further news was released. Peyton and Johnson have since built up a good working partnership with such films as San Andreas , and the upcoming Rampage . But it certainly looks like Journey films are no longer on the table.

Of course it doesn't mean that a version of the film would not appear in the future with a different lead and direction, but that seems highly unlikely. Johnson's reference to From the Earth to the Moon certainly fits in with the final scene of Journey 2 , and maybe that just couldn't be satisfactorily worked into a new film. It would have been interesting to see what Verne reference a fourth film may have held. In the meantime, fans of The Rock have plenty of upcoming projects to look forward to, even if Journey 3 isn't one of them.

MORE:  ‘Journey 2: The Mysterious Island’ Review

Source: Dwayne Johnson

Thanks For Rating

Reminder successfully set, select a city.

• Nashik Times
• Aurangabad Times
• Badlapur Times

You can change your city from here. We serve personalized stories based on the selected city

• Edit Profile
• Briefs Movies TV Web Series Lifestyle Trending Medithon Visual Stories Music Events Videos Theatre Photos Gaming

Suhana Khan shows off her camera skills with STUNNING mirror selfies from New York getaway with dad Shah Rukh Khan

Vicky Kaushal REVEALS Katrina Kaif's reaction to his dance moves in 'Tauba Tauba'

'Shrek 5' officially CONFIRMED with Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz returning; eyes July 2026 release

Kalki 2898 AD to Dangal: Indian movies in the Rs 500 crore club

Shah Rukh Khan ditches security as he goes shoe shopping with Suhana Khan - WATCH

Did you spot Salman Khan's swanky Rs 20.87 Crore watch?

Movie Reviews

Builder Boys

Amar Colony

Despicable Me 4

Space Cadet

Beverly Hills Cop: Axel...

Kalki 2898 - AD

Sharmajee Ki Beti

Rautu Ka Raaz

• Movie Listings

Pooja Hegde Showcases Traditional Supremacy in Her Rich Saree Fashion

Chaithra Achar's stunning off-screen appearances

Private jets to luxury watches: Expensive collection of Jr. NTR

Satyajit Ray, a visionary in Indian cinematic storytelling

​Attractive looks of Nazriya Nazim​

Bhojpuri celebs who also worked on TV

'Kalki 2898 AD' box office collection: Domestic and Overseas split

Sara Ali Khan looks like an ethnic vision in a colourful lehenga at Anant-Radhika’s haldi

Charming pictures of Puja Joshi you can't miss

Sreeleela Captivates in Stunning Formal Ensemble

A Stranger By the Hill...

Fake Boyfriend

Ishq Vishk Rebound

Naach Basanti Naach

Chandu Champion

Emagadhagan

Kavundampalayam

Bayamariya Brammai

Monica: Oru AI Story

Pithala Maathi

Prabuthwa Junior Kalas...

Seetha Kalyana Vaibhog...

Antheema Theerpu

Padmavyuham lo Chakrad...

OMG: O Manchi Ghost

Honeymoon Express

Double Ismart

Kanakarajyam

Pattaapakal

Kunddala Puranam

Nadanna Sambavam

Gaganachari

Bisi-Bisi Ice-Cream

Chilli Chicken

Sambavami Yuge Yuge

Alexander Er Pisi

Kaliachak - Chapter 1

Aalor Disha

Tahader Katha

Khelaghar Bandhte Lege...

Nayan Rahasya

Jatt And Juliet 3

Jatt & Juliet 3

Teriya Meriya Hera Phe...

Kudi Haryane Val Di

Ni Main Sass Kuttni 2

Rode College

Allahr Vres

Mehkma Chhadeyan Da

Daddy Samjheya Karo

Vishay Hard

A Valentine`s Day

Aamhi Jarange

Karmavirayan

Rang De Basanti

Dil Lagal Dupatta Wali...

Mahadev Ka Gorakhpur

Nirahua The Leader

Tu Nikla Chhupa Rustam...

Rowdy Rocky

Mental Aashiq

Raja Ki Aayegi Baaraat...

Trisha on the Rocks

Love You Baa

Jalul Jalul Thi Aavjo

Roshani Confused Girl

Insurance Jimmy

Maru Mann Taru Thayu

Chandrabanshi

Jajabara 2.0

Operation 12/17

Dui Dune Panch

Journey 3: from the earth to the moon, your rating, write a review (optional).

• Movie Listings /

Would you like to review this movie?

Cast & Crew

Latest Reviews

Commander Karan Saxena

The Man With 1000 Kids

Taylor Swift Vs. Scooter Braun...

• Who are the actors in 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon'? 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon' star cast includes Dwayne Johnson, Josh Hutcherson and Anna Colwell.
• Who is the director of 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon'? 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon' is directed by Brad Peyton.
• What is Genre of 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon'? 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon' belongs to 'Adventure' genre.
• In Which Languages is 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon' releasing? 'Journey 3: From The Earth To The Moon' is releasing in English.

Visual Stories

Entertainment

10 Indian spices to boost immunity during monsoon

From highest to deepest: 10 interesting facts about the world we live in

Preity Zinta commands attention in a sequin-embellished black dress

​How to effortlessly save money every day​

7 simple brain teasers for kids to sharpen their brain

Bollywood's emerging stars

Upcoming Movies

Popular Movie Reviews

Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F

A Quiet Place: Day One

Fancy Dance

Inside Out 2

Trigger Warning

Bad Boys: Ride Or Die

The Rock Confirms Journey 3 Is Dead

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Emma Roberts Says 'I've Lost More Jobs' Because of One Thing She Can't Control

Narnia star william moseley on returning to the franchise with co-stars: 'a dream for all of us', nicolas cage picks his favorite 'nic cage movie' & it’s not one you’d expect.

It looks like Dwayne Johnson has managed to clear up his schedule a little bit. Unfortunately, it comes a the cost of those who wanted to see Journey 3 happen. Yes, even though the sequel has been said to be in development for quite some time, it looks like Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon isn't going to happen. At least not with Dwayne Johnson in it. But is Warner Bros. really going to put that franchise on another star's shoulders? Probably not.

Dwayne Johnson is very active on social media and engages with his fans quite often. Recently, a 15-year-old fan reached out to The Rock on Twitter to ask about the status of Journey 3 , which was put into development shortly after Journey 2: The Mysterious Island was released in 2012. Sadly, even though Johnson let his young fan down very easy and in a classy manner, he confirmed that he has "no plans" to make Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon . Here's what he had to say about it.

"Hey big man, good to see you asked dad's permission to use his account. Unfortunately, I have no plans to make another Journey movie . My goal to make Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon" became a real challenge to crack creatively. Thx for being such a cool fan."

While there are those who still want to see a Journey sequel happen, Dwayne Johnson's career has also come a very long way since Journey 2: The Mysterious Island was released. In that handful of years, he's asserted himself as one of the most bankable movie stars on the planet and has lined up more projects than any one man can seemingly handle. In many ways, he has bigger fish to fry. And for that matter, so does Warner Bros.

The Rock became known as "franchise Viagra" at one point because of what he was able to do for movies like Journey 2: The Mysterious Island . The first movie, Journey to the Center of the Earth , starred Brendan Fraser and was modestly successful, bringing in $241 million worldwide, but Dwayne Johnson brought it to another level. The sequel, with Johnson as the star, made $335.2 million, making it a much bigger hit for the studio. He did similar things for G.I. Joe and, most notably, The Fast and Furious franchise when he joined up for Fast Five .

There's also the matter of his schedule. He's currently got Jungle Cruise , Black Adam , Doc Savage , the Big Trouble in Little China remake and San Andreas 2 on his slate, plus another season of Ballers , just to name a few. It's clear not every project he's attached to was going to get made and Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon is one of the things that fell by the wayside. Dwayne Johnson has to do something to make room for that run for president in 2024 , right? Take a look at the actor's message, courtesy of Dwayne Johnson's Twitter

• Journey 3 (2018)

Login to watch trendy content

• icon/add list Watch Later icon/arrow
• Button/Menu/Account/Focus Reservation icon/arrow
• 编组 4 Subtitle Translation icon/arrow
• icon_Bottom bar_Account_Normal@2x My Account icon/arrow
• Group 2 Logout icon/arrow

Scan QR to Download APP, Get VIP for FREE!

*Only limited to New User in APP

Follow your heart

• MY STAND-IN
• Variety Show
• Thai Collection
• Vietnam Dubbed
• Documentary

Watch Later

Reservation, subtitle translation, about iqiyi.

• Products and Services
• Ways to Watch
• Investor Relations

Cooperation

• Corporate relations
• Preinstall Cooperation

Help and support

• Security Response Center
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

As Beautiful As You

Details | as beautiful as you, description.

Recommended

Healing Food, Healing Love (Thai ver.)

Fairy From the Painting

Liars in Love

Men in Love

Summer's Desire

Follow your heart (Thai ver.)

My Wife's Double Life

Story of Yanxi Palace

Story of Yanxi Palace(Thai ver.)

Fox Spirit Matchmaker: Red-Moon Pact (Thai ver.)

Snow lover(Thai ver.)

See You Tomorrow(Thai ver.)

First Love (Thai ver.)

Her Fantastic Adventures

Out With a Bang(Thai ver.)

Coffee & Vanilla

Second Time is a Charm

Sorry Naik Lori

Unstoppable Youth

Mihrab Cinta Zulaikha

See You Tomorrow

She Would Never Know

Out With a Bang

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Supreme Court Is Not Done Remaking America

Some of the rulings that came before the justices’ decision on presidential immunity could prove to have just as big an impact..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

When the Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, much of the focus was on the ruling that gave Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. But as my colleague Adam Liptak explains, a set of rulings that generated far less attention could have just as big an impact on American government and society.

It’s Monday, July 8.

Adam, welcome back. It hasn’t been very long, but we want to talk to you about the rest of the Supreme Court’s decisions that happened over the past few weeks, the rest meaning the non-Trump decisions. There were a lot of other cases, many of which we covered on the show over the past year, but we haven’t yet talked about where the justices landed as they issued their rulings on these cases over the past few weeks. So I wonder if you can walk us through some of the bigger decisions and what, taken as a whole, this entire term really means. So where should we start?

Well, this term had so many major cases, Michael, on so many important issues touching all aspects of American politics and society, that it’s a little hard to know where to start. But I think one way to think about the term is to ask, how much is this a 6-3 court? There are six conservatives in the majority, the three liberal justices in dissent. Are we going to get that kind of classic lineup time after time after time?

And one way to start answering that question is to look at two areas which are kind of part of the court’s greatest hits, areas where they’ve done a lot of work in the last few terms — guns and abortion.

OK, let’s start with guns.

The court had two big guns cases. One of them involved the Second Amendment and broke 8 to 1 against Second Amendment rights. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the most avid supporter of gun rights, was in dissent. So let me tell you just a little bit about this case.

There’s a federal law that says people subject to domestic violence restraining orders, it’s a crime for them to have guns. A guy named Zackey Rahimi was subject to such a domestic violence restraining order, but he goes to court and says, this law violates my Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment protects me and allows me to have a gun even if I’m in this status.

And that goes to the Supreme Court. And the way the Supreme Court analyzes this question is it looks to a test that it established only a couple of years ago, in 2022, which said you judge the constitutionality of gun control laws using history. You kind of go back in time and you see whether the community and the founding era disarmed people in the same way that the current law disarms people.

And you might think that actually, back in the 1700s, there were no such things as domestic violence restraining orders. So you might think that the answer is, this contemporary law is unconstitutional. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for an eight-justice majority, says, no, that’s not quite right. We’re going to kind of roll back the specificity of the test and look at very general principles. Can you disarm dangerous people back then? And if you can do that, then you can disarm Rahimi, even under this law that the founding generation could not have contemplated.

That’s really interesting. So the court, its conservative majority especially, seems to be saying that our last big decision made it too hard to regulate guns. We need to fix that. So we’re going to search really hard for a way to make sure that somebody with a restraining order for domestic abuse can’t legally have a gun.

Right. On the other hand, there was a second guns case, not involving the Second Amendment, but posing an important issue. The question in the case was whether the Trump administration was allowed to enact a gun control regulation in 2017 after the Las Vegas shooting in which, at an outdoor music festival, a gunman killed 58 people, wounded 500 more.

And the Trump administration, prompted by this massacre, they issue a regulation that tries to outlaw bump stocks. What are bump stocks? They’re devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into weapons that can fire at rates approaching a machine gun. And drawing on the authority of a 1934 law which bans, for the most part, civilian ownership of machine guns, it said bump stocks are basically the same thing, and we will, by regulation, outlaw them.

And the question for the court was, did the 1934 law authorize that? And here — and this is a typical split on this kind of stuff — the majority, the conservative majority, takes a textualist approach. It bears down on the particular words of the statute. And Justice Thomas looks at the words that Congress said a machine gun is one where a single function of the trigger causes all of these bullets to fly. And a bump stock, he said, is not precisely that. Therefore, we’re going to strike down this regulation.

So how do you reconcile these two divergent gun rulings, one where the court works really hard to allow for gun restrictions in the case of domestic abusers, and another where they seem to have no compunction about allowing for a bump stock that I think most of us, practically speaking, understand as making a semiautomatic weapon automatic in the real world?

I think the court draws a real distinction between two kinds of cases. One is about interpreting the Constitution, interpreting the Second Amendment. And in that area, it is plowing new ground. It has issued maybe four major Second Amendment cases, and it’s trying to figure out how that works and what the limits are. And the Rahimi case shows you that they’re still finding their way. They’re trying to find the right balance in that constitutional realm where they are the last word.

The bump stocks case doesn’t involve the Constitution. It involves an interpretation of a statute enacted by Congress. And the majority, in those kinds of cases, tends to read statutes narrowly. And they would say that that’s acceptable because unlike in a constitutional case, if it’s about a congressional statute, Congress can go back and fix it. Congress can say whatever it likes.

Justice Samuel Alito said, in the bump stocks case, this massacre was terrible, and it’s a pity Congress didn’t act. But if Congress doesn’t act, a regulator can’t step in and do what Congress didn’t do.

That’s interesting, because it suggests a surprising level of open-mindedness among even the court’s most conservative justices to an interpretation of the Constitution that may allow for a greater level of gun regulation than perhaps we think of them as being interested in.

Yeah. When we’re talking about the Constitution, they do seem more open to regulating guns than you might have thought.

OK. You also mentioned, Adam, abortion. Let’s talk about those decisions from this court.

So the Court, in 2022, as everyone knows, overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. But in two cases this term, they effectively enhanced the availability of abortion.

One of them involves emergency rooms. There’s a federal statute that says that emergency rooms that receive federal money have to treat patients and give them stabilizing care if they arrive in the emergency room. That seems to conflict with a strict Idaho law that prohibits abortions except to save the life of the mother.

The court agrees to hear the case, it hears arguments, and then it dismisses the case. It dismisses it as improvidently granted, which is judicial speak for “never mind.” But it’s very tentative. The court merely dismissed the case. It said it was too early to hear it. They’re going to look at it later. So it’s a very tentative sliver of a victory for abortion rights.

But nonetheless, the effect of this is to suspend the Idaho law, at least to the extent it conflicts with the federal law. And it lets emergency abortions continue. Women in Idaho have more access to emergency abortions as a consequence of this decision than if the court had gone the other way.

And of course, the other abortion case centered on the abortion pill, mifepristone.

Right. And that pill is used in a majority of abortions. And the availability of that pill is crucial to what remains of abortion rights in the United States. Lower courts had said that the Food and Drug Administration exceeded its authority in approving these abortion pills. And the case comes to the Supreme Court.

And here, again, they rule in favor of abortion rights. They maintain the availability of these pills, but they do so, again, in a kind of technical way that does not assure that the pills will forever remain available. What the court says, merely — and unanimously — is that the particular plaintiffs who challenged the law, doctors and medical groups who oppose abortion, didn’t have standing, hadn’t suffered the sort of direct injury, that gave them the right to sue.

And it got rid of the case on standing grounds. But that’s not a permanent decision. Other people, other groups can sue, have sued. And the court didn’t decide whether the FDA approval was proper or not, only that the lawsuit couldn’t go forward. And here, too, this case is a victory for abortion rights, but maybe an ephemeral one, and may well return to the court, which has not given an indication of how it will turn out if they actually address the merits.

Got it. So this is a court, the one you’re describing in these rulings, acting with some nuance and some restraint?

Yeah, this picture is complicated.

This is not the court that we’re used to thinking about. There are a lot of crosscurrents. There are a lot of surprises. And that was true, in those cases, on big issues, on guns and abortion. But in another set of cases, the court moved aggressively to the right and really took on the very power and structure of the federal government.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

So Adam, tell us about these cases where the court was less nuanced, less, perhaps, judicious, and really tried to move aggressively to the right and take on the power of government?

So it’s been a long-term goal of the conservative legal movement to weaken the power of regulators, of taking on what they call the administrative state. And this term, the court really vindicated that decades-old project primarily by overruling the foundational precedent in this area, a precedent that gave expert agencies the power to interpret federal laws and enact regulations to protect consumers, investors, all manner of people.

And the court overruled that decision called Chevron. It was as important as the court, two years ago, overruling the right to abortion, one year ago, overruling affirmative action in higher education. This decision will reshape the way the federal government does its work.

Right. And Adam, as I recall, because we did a whole episode about this with you, Chevron created a framework whereby if a law has any ambiguity about how it’s supposed to play out, that the experts within the federal government, within the EPA or the FDA, you name the agency, that we collectively defer to them and their wisdom, and that that becomes the basis for how these laws get interpreted and carried out.

That’s right. And if you think about it, Michael, Congress can’t anticipate every circumstance. Congress will, on purpose sometimes, and inevitably at other times, leave gaps in the law. And those gaps need to be filled by someone. And the choice that the Chevron decision made was to say, we’re going to let the expert regulator fill in those gaps. If there are ambiguities in statutes, the reasonable interpretation of the regulator will get deference from courts.

Experts, not judges, will decide this matter, is what Chevron said 40 years ago. And it’s really hard to overstate the consequences of overruling Chevron. It will open countless, countless regulations to judicial challenge. It may actually kind of swamp the courts. The courts have relied very heavily on Chevron to make difficult decisions about complicated stuff, questions about the environment, and food safety, and drugs, and securities, questions that really often require quite technical expertise.

So what was the court’s rationale for changing that Chevron framework that’s been in place for so long?

What the six-justice majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts says is that Chevron was a wrong turn from the outset, that unelected bureaucrats should not be empowered to say what the law means, that that’s the job of judges. So it moves from the expert agency to federal judges the determination of all sorts of important issues. And it probably has the effect of deregulating much of American society.

I mean, in the old world, the regulator had a thumb on the scale. The regulator’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute was the one that counted. And now, the judge will have a fresh look at it. That doesn’t mean that, in every case, the challenger wins, and in every case, the regulator loses. But it shifts the balance and it makes challenges more likely to succeed.

Where else did we see this instinct by the court to challenge the government’s authority in this term?

So right after the court overturns Chevron, it issues a second decision that really amplifies the power of that decision, because it says that challenges can be brought not only in the usual six-year statute of limitations from when a regulation is issued, but six years from when it first affects a company.

And bear with me, because that’s a big difference. If I start a company tomorrow, I have six years to sue over a regulation that affects it, even though that regulation may have been in place for 30 years. So it restarts the clock on challenges, and that one-two punch, both of them decided by 6-3 majorities, go even further in reshaping the ability of the federal government to regulate.

I just want to be sure I understand something. So in the past, let’s say the Clean Water Act was passed in the 1970s. Under the old statute of limitations, a company could sue and say that regulation is a problem for six years. But you’re saying a new company formed right now could go back and sue over something in a 30 - or 40-year-old law and how it’s being interpreted. In other words, this ruling means there really isn’t a statute of limitations on challenging these regulations any longer.

That’s right. And it’s not as though you can’t form a company just for the purpose of litigation. I mean, it completely opens up the ability of industries, trade groups just to set up a trivial nothing company that will then be said to be affected by the regulation and then can sue from now until the end of time.

And the liberal justices sure understood what was happening here, that this one-two punch, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent, was a catastrophe for regulators. She wrote, “At the end of a momentous term, this much is clear — that tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the court’s holdings in this case have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government.”

It’s a pretty searing warning.

Yeah. I mean, talking about regulations and administrative law might put some people to sleep, but this is a really big deal, Michael. And as if those two cases were not a substantial enough attack on the federal government’s regulatory authority, the court also issues a third 6-3 decision undoing one of the main ways that regulators file enforcement actions against people who they say have violated the law.

They don’t always go to court. Sometimes, they go to administrative tribunals within the agency. The court says, no, that’s no good. Only courts can adjudicate these matters. So it’s just another instance of the court being consistently hostile to the administrative state.

Adam, all three of these decisions might sound pretty dangerous if you have a lot of confidence in the federal government and in the judgments of regulators and bureaucrats to interpret things. But if you’re one of the many Americans who doesn’t have a whole lot of faith in the federal government, I have to imagine all of these rulings might seem pretty constructive.

That’s an excellent point. Lots of people are skeptical of regulators, are skeptical of what they would call the deep state, of unelected bureaucrats, of even the idea of expertise. And so for those people, this is a step in the right direction. It’s taking power away from bureaucrats and handing it to what we would hope are independent, fair-minded judges.

What does seem clear, Adam, is that even though this episode was supposed to be about the rest of the Supreme Court’s rulings this year, the less sexy-sounding decisions than Trump and immunity and how much power and protection all future presidents have, the rulings that you’re describing around the government’s administrative power, they seem like they’re going to have the greatest long-term impact on how our government functions, and in a sense, what our society looks like.

Well, the biggest case of the term is obviously the Trump immunity case. That’s a decision for the ages. But close behind these decisions, reshaping the administrative state and vindicating a long-held goal of the conservative legal movement going back to the Reagan administration, that the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, has been pushing for decades, and really unraveling a conception of what the federal government does that’s been in place since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.

So as much as we’ve been talking about other cases where the court was tentative, surprising, nuanced in the biggest cases of the term, all delivered by six to three votes, all controlled by the conservative supermajority, the court was not nuanced. It was straightforward, and it reshaped American government.

In the end, a hard right court is going to, no matter how much it might deviate, operate like a hard right court.

Yes, Michael. It’s possible to look at the balance of the decisions and draw all kinds of complicated conclusions about the court. But when you look at the biggest cases, the picture you see is a conservative court moving the law to the right.

Well, Adam, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thank you, Michael.

Here’s what else you need to know today. “The Times” reports that four senior Democratic house members have told colleagues that President Biden must step aside as the party’s nominee over fears that he is no longer capable of winning. They include the top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Those top Democrats joined five rank and file House Democrats who have publicly called for Biden to step down. The latest of those was representative Angie Craig of Minnesota, who represents a swing district in the state. In a statement, Craig said that after watching Biden in the first debate, quote, “I do not believe that the president can effectively campaign and win against Donald Trump.” Senate Democrats remain largely quiet on the question of Biden’s future.

Now, you probably heard, I had a little debate last week. I can’t say it was my best performance.

In several appearances over the weekend, Biden acknowledged the growing skepticism of his candidacy —

Well, ever since then, there’s been a lot of speculation. What’s Joe going to do?

— but emphatically rejected the calls to step aside.

Well, let me say this clearly as I can. I’m staying in the race.

And in a surprise electoral upset, France’s political left was projected to win the largest number of seats in the National Assembly after the latest round of voting. The anti-immigrant far right had been expected to make history by winning the most seats, but a last-minute scramble by left wing parties averted that result.

Today’s episode was produced by Rikki Novetsky, Shannon Lin, and Rob Szypko. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow. Contains original music by Dan Powell and Sophia Lanman, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• July 9, 2024   •   27:33 The Era of Killer Robots Is Here
• July 8, 2024   •   26:17 The Supreme Court Is Not Done Remaking America
• July 5, 2024   •   26:50 How Bad Is Drinking for You, Really?
• July 4, 2024   •   26:12 Biden’s Slipping Support
• July 3, 2024   •   32:01 The American Journalist on Trial in Russia
• July 2, 2024   •   27:55 Trump Wins Broad Immunity
• July 1, 2024   •   33:39 Will Biden Withdraw?
• June 28, 2024   •   36:42 A Brutal Debate for Biden
• June 27, 2024   •   27:49 The Doping Scandal Rocking the Upcoming Olympics
• June 26, 2024   •   23:27 France’s Far Right at the Gates of Power
• June 25, 2024   •   31:26 The Plan to Defeat Critics of Israel in Congress
• June 24, 2024   •   28:44 The Army of Poets and Students Fighting a Forgotten War

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Adam Liptak

Produced by Rikki Novetsky ,  Shannon M. Lin and Rob Szypko

Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow

Original music by Dan Powell and Sophia Lanman

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

When the Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, much of the focus was on the ruling that gave former President Donald J. Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. But another set of rulings that generated less attention could have just as big an impact on American government and society.

Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, explains.

On today’s episode

Adam Liptak , who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments.

Background reading

In a volatile term, a fractured Supreme Court remade America .

Here’s a guide to the major Supreme Court decisions in 2024 .

In video: How a fractured Supreme Court ruled this term .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

Advertisement