The Supreme Court has placed a stay on a lower court's ruling that upheld new abortion standards in Texas, to give opponents of a controversial 2013 law time to take their case to the nation's highest court.

The stay is temporary: If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the stay will be lifted and the law will take effect. If the justices agree to hear the case, the stay would remain in effect until a ruling is issued.

The Texas law requires "nearly all Texas facilities that perform abortions to operate like hospital-style surgical centers," as NPR's Jennifer Ludden reported earlier this month.

The law also requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

About half of Texas' 40 clinics have shut down since the law was approved, Jennifer said. She added that if another dozen clinics close, nearly a million women would be at least 150 miles from the nearest abortion provider.

Says Yes To Lethal Injection

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, says the sedative used in Oklahoma's lethal injection cocktail does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

As NPR's Nina Totenberg reported in April, it's the second time in seven years the court has looked at lethal injection – and it comes after several botched executions over the past year.

Although the death penalty is not employed by any of the six New England states, the conviction in federal court of Boston Marathon bomber tk Tsarnaev and his sentence to death gives the decision particular relevance.

Voids Obama’s Toxic Emission Plan

The Supreme Court has ruled against an Obama administration effort to limit toxic mercury emissions from power plants, saying the costs of compliance with regulation should be taken into account.

In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with industry and 23 states that challenged the Environmental Protection Agency over the rules for oil- and coal-fired utilities, which the EPA estimated would cost $9.6 billion dollars annually. The states and industry groups said the cost estimate far outweighed the benefits the rules would produce, estimated at $4 million to $6 million per year.

The courts majority agreed, saying the EPA interpreted the regulation "unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants."

Obama’s EPA, said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, “is already working to reduce the toxic air emissions from power plants that harm our residents and natural resources. The benefits – which include preventing thousands of premature deaths annually and reducing exposure of pregnant women and developing fetuses to mercury – far outweigh the costs of controlling toxic power plant emissions.  Given the decades-long delay in promulgating this rule, I urge the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the EPA to swiftly complete the necessary additional proceedings so that residents across Massachusetts and the nation will continue to be protected from these dangerous air pollutants.”

Upholds Nonpartisan Congressional Redistricting

U.S. states' efforts to counter extreme gerrymandering also won a victory Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bipartisan Arizona panel that draws the state's districts. The court's vote was 5-4; Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

This move could effect one third of the congressional races pending next year.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which her citations included James Madison writing in The Federalist Papers.

"The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering," Ginsberg wrote, "and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have 'an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.' "

Ginsberg continued, quoting a 2005 gerrymandering case: "In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' "

Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission was formed 15 years ago, after the state's voters approved Proposition 106 and amended the state's constitution to take redistricting power away from the Legislature (which later filed suit).

In his dissent, Roberts said that majority's position "has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court."