Welcome to a special edition of The Brief. We have new reporting for you on fallout from the US Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, and a podcast that examines the legal arguments in the majority opinion and dissent.

Just as the Supreme Court’s decision to jettison its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling will create disparities in access to abortion, there will also be a divide between companies that provide expanded benefits for employees to receive out-of-state medical care and those that do not, Jeff Green and Matthew Boyle report.

• Bellwether corporations from the worlds of finance, media, technology, and health care said they’d bankroll travel for workers who need access to safe, legal abortions and other procedures. The conservative majority’s decision to overturn the 1973 ruling that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right is expected to lead to curbs on the procedure in more than half of US states.
• JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Deutsche Bank AG said they will pay for employees to travel to another state to obtain a legal abortion. Walt Disney Co., Meta Platforms Inc., and Microsoft Corp. pledged similar support. Health-care companies CVS Health Corp. and Biogen Inc. also said they’re making out-of-state medical care, including abortion, accessible for employees.
• The Big Question: That approach could open businesses to criticism or retribution from abortion opponents in states that adopt restrictions, raising the question of how many employers will follow the big companies’ example.
• Read More: Garland Says DOJ Will Protect Right to Get Abortion Out-of-State

Could a state punish an employer for covering employee travel costs now that Roe has been toppled? Stephen L. Carter delves into that thorny question in a Bloomberg Opinion piece.

• “I’m not predicting that the courts would necessarily uphold a law forbidding corporations doing business within its borders to reimburse travel expenses of employees who obtain abortions elsewhere,” he writes. “But one shouldn’t regard the possibility as farfetched.”

The Supreme Court has produced the sea change in constitutional law that many expected when Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bernadette Meyler, the Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, writes in an Insights piece for Bloomberg Law.

• In its abortion ruling and its decision striking down New York State’s gun licensing regime as a violation of the Second Amendment, the high court tightly tethered the availability of a right to a historical analysis.
• “Adhering narrowly to the historical application of constitutional rights leads to an entrenchment of discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups,” she writes. “It will also result in an ad hoc vision of the scope of constitutional rights, dependent on the vagaries of particular past practices.”

The high court’s abortion decision puts at risk other hard-won rights that were established by court decision and weren’t explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, Erik Larson and Emma Kinery report.

• “We should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. He was referring to landmark Supreme Court rulings that legalized contraception, same-sex intercourse, and same-sex marriage.
• But Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, took a different tack. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” he wrote.
• The court’s three liberal justices, in their dissent, said Alito’s guarantee cannot be taken at face value, and that Thomas’s opinion is a clear warning.

In a post-Roe America, women will still be able to access a pill used to end early pregnancies in states that don’t restrict it, Celine Castronuovo writes in an explainer piece.

• The FDA’s regulation of the mifepristone pill won’t change, but a patchwork of abortion laws could raise questions over states’ authority to impose restrictions that go beyond what the agency recommends.
• What about individuals who defy anti-abortion laws and later seek treatment for complications? HIPAA, aka the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, will offer little protection to them, Allie Reed writes in another sharp explainer.
• Surgical and medical abortions are highly safe, but complications occasionally occur that could expose patients to legal risk if they seek help in states with abortion bans.

Want More? Read the Supreme Court’s Full Ruling on Abortion Rights

In the latest edition of our Cases and Controversies podcast, host Kimberly Robinson and Bloomberg Law senior reporter Lydia Wheeler analyze the reasoning Justice Alito used in writing the majority opinion.

They also consider the dissent by the court’s three liberal justices decrying the effect on women’s rights and the court’s legitimacy.

LISTEN HERE and subscribe to Cases and Controversies on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Megaphone, or Audible.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Subscribe to The Brief and get Bloomberg Law’s top stories delivered free to your Inbox every weekday afternoon.