Comprehensive Overview of the 2024 Supreme Court Docket
Cases We’re Tracking Closely
June 28, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, the Court has decided to overturn the ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This change means that federal agencies will have less authority to explain what laws mean. Instead, courts will have more say in deciding what unclear laws legislate.
· The Court decided that The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
· The case stemmed from group of commercial fishermen sued because they did not want to pay $710 per day for at-sea monitoring programs. They argued that the Magnus-Stevens Act doesn't give the government the right to make them pay for these programs, and that the government didn't follow the correct procedures for making this rule.
June 27, Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency More Info
· With a ruling of 5-4, the Court has decided to block the Good Neighbor Plan. It has sided with Ohio, Indiana, and Western Virginia in pausing the plan.
· The Good Neighbor Plan, implemented by the Biden administration, is meant to reduce air pollution drifting from Western and Midwestern states into Eastern states. It requires the factories and power plants to cut air pollution that can affect these states.
June 21, Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado More Info
· With a ruling of 5-4, the Court denied the motion to approve a proposed agreement that would dispose the United States' claims in the Rio Grande Compact, without its agreement.
· Texas sued Colorado and New Mexico, claiming that New Mexico's excessive groundwater pumping was reducing Rio Grande water supplies for Texas, which violated the compact. In 2014, the U.S. government sought to join the settlement of the dispute.
· The Rio Grande Compact is an interstate agreement among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. It governs how water from the Rio Grande is shared among the states and sets out rules and obligations regarding water use and management.
July 1, Trump v. United States More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, the court has decided that former Presidents are completely protected from being prosecuted for actions they took while they were President, as long as it was within their constitutional authority. Former Presidents are also likely presumed to enjoy immunity from prosecution if his action pertains even just a small amount to his official status. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
· President Trump was charged with four counts related to the January 6th Capitol attack. He argued that actions he took as President can't be prosecuted, and that a former President can't be prosecuted unless impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
· In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts writes that “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”
Other Decided Cases
May 9, Culley v. Marshall More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion, that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.
· Under the Due Process Clause, notice and a hearing is generally required before seizing property. However, there is a different standard for personal property, because it can be destroyed, removed, or concealed. Therefore, the courts exercise due process with a timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing, but do not require a separate preliminary hearing. In this case, the item was a vehicle, which falls under personal property.
· Civil forfeiture involves law enforcement agencies seizing property that they suspect has been involved in illegal activity. In this forfeiture hearing, the court decides whether the seized property should be taken permanently, allowing the owner to defend their right to keep it.
May 9, Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion, that under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner can seek money for any infringement claim, regardless of when it happened.
May 16, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America More Info
· With a ruling of 7-2, this court case ruled that the funding scheme for CFPB by Congress does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution.
· CFPB is an independent agency that does not need money designated to it from Congress. Its funding comes directly from the Federal Reserve, which in turn collects fees from member banks.
· A group of lenders sued the CFPB because they disagree with a rule that stops them from taking money from borrowers' bank accounts after two failed attempts due to insufficient funds. They claim the way the agency gets its money is against the Constitution.
May 16, Harrow v. Department of Defense More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous opinion, that the 60-day deadline for filing a case, as specified in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), is not an absolute requirement that determines whether a court can hear the case. Instead, it can be subject to exceptions or extensions depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore, missing the deadline doesn't automatically mean the court can't consider the case; it could still potentially hear it under certain conditions.
May 16, Smith v. Spizzirri More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous opinion, that if a court decides a lawsuit should be settled through arbitration and one party asks to pause the court case until arbitration is done, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act says the court must grant the pause and cannot dismiss the lawsuit.
May 23, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P. More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, this court case ruled that South Carolina’s newly adopted congressional map was not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
· The Republican-controlled legislature created a new congressional map, moving tens of thousands of Black voters to a different district, in turn making the prior district easily obtainable for Republicans. After the NAACP sued based on racial gerrymandering, legislators appealed that it was a political gerrymander, only seeming racial due to a correlation between partisanship and race.
· SCOTUS agrees with legislators, finding that there is no substantial evidence of a racial gerrymander, and must presume that these legislatures acted in good faith.
· Gerrymandering is when political boundaries, like voting districts, are manipulated to favor a particular party or group.
May 23, Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous opinion, that when parties agree to use arbitration to settle disputes and include a delegation clause, it means they've agreed to let an arbitrator decide certain issues. Later, if another contract doesn't mention arbitration or delegation, a court must decide if the original arbitration agreement still applies to those issues.
May 30, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo More Info
· With a ruling of 9-0, this court case ruled that the N.R.A is allowed to pursue a lawsuit against a NY State official, who they claim, violated the First Amendment in attempt to persuade companies to refer from participating in business with N.R.A following a school shooting in Parkland, Fla.
· This case comes as a motion-to-dismiss, where the court has decided to allow the pursuit of the lawsuit.
· The court holds that government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties to suppress views that they are not in favor of. If the allegations brought by N.F.A are true, this is a First Amendment claim against Maria Vullo.
May 30, Thornell v. Jones More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion, that when a defendant in a death penalty case argues that their lawyer didn't present important evidence that could lessen their sentence, the court must decide if this evidence could have changed the outcome. They do this by looking at all the evidence, considering how strong it is, and weighing the reasons for and against the death penalty.
May 30, Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous decision, that state laws are overridden by the National Bank Act only if they unfairly treat national banks or greatly hinder their ability to use their powers, based on the guidelines established in Barnett Bank v. Nelson.
June 6, Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe More Info
· The Court held, with a 5-4 opinion, that The Indian Health Service must allocate funds for "contract support costs," which are expenses related to managing contracts with tribes for health services. This includes not only covering costs directly related to IHS-funded activities but also supporting tribes in using funds they generate from other sources to provide these services. This ensures tribes have the necessary resources to deliver healthcare effectively.
June 6, Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous decision, that an insurer responsible for a bankruptcy claim may object to a plan of reorganization, under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
June 6, Connelly v. United States More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous decision, that a corporation’s contract to buy back shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for federal estate tax purposes.
· An agreement for stock does not change the value or worth of a corporation.
June 13, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine More Info
· With a ruling of 9-0, this court case upheld recent FDA guidelines in approving the abortion medication, mifepristone and allowing for it to be accessible through telemedicine and pharmacies.
· The plaintiff, Alliance, argued that the FDA overstepped its authority by approving and expanding the distribution of mifepristone. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Alliance doesn't have the legal right to challenge the FDA's actions. Since their concerns are moral and ideological rather than involving monetary, property, or physical harm, they lack standing to sue in federal court.
June 13, Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney More Info
· The Court held, with an 8-1 opinion, that when the National Labor Relations Board asks a court for a temporary order, under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, the court must use the four factors, outlined in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. to decide. They look at whether the Board is likely to win the case, if not issuing the order could cause serious harm, how much hardship each side would face, and whether the public interest supports granting the order.
June 14, Garland v. Cargill More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, this court case ruled that ATF overstepped in enacting a ban on bump stocks, which are gun attachments that allow a semiautomatic firearm to fire bullets more rapidly.
· The ban was enacted in response to a mass shooting in Las Vegas, NV where a gunman possessed weapons with bump stock which allowed him to fire hundreds of rounds within minutes. The ban went against a prior statute, and reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, opening owners to criminal liability. Michael Cargill, who possessed bump stocks, challenges the regulation in claim that ATF exceeded its authority.
· In the opinion of the Court, Justice Thomas explains that historically, there has always been restricted access to machine guns. However, a semiautomatic firearm is not a machine gun. The question of the case is whether a bump stock converts the rifle into a machine gun, and the court holds that it does not.
June 20, Gonzalez v. Trevino More Info
· The Court held, in a per curium ruling, that The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit didn't correctly use the rules from Nieves v. Barlett when it asked Sylvia Gonzalez to give specific examples of similar situations to support her claim of retaliatory arrest.
June 20, Moore v. U.S. More Info
· The Court held, in a 7-2 opinion, that Mandatory Repatriation Tax, which taxes American shareholders on income from foreign corporations, is constitutional under Congress's authority.
June 20, Diaz v. Unites States More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion that expert testimony stating that "most people" in a certain group have a specific mental state isn't considered an opinion about "the defendant" and therefore, it doesn't break Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).
June 20, Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion, Under the Fourth Amendment and common law, having probable cause for one criminal charge doesn't automatically dismiss a malicious prosecution claim for another, baseless charge.
June 21, US v Rahimi More Info
· With a ruling of 8-1, this court case ruled that a federal law, which makes it a crime for an individual who is prone to domestic violence restraining orders to own a gun, does not violate the Second Amendment.
· Rahimi was under a domestic violence restraining order when he approached the home of the mother of his child with a firearm. When he was charged in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), for possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, he claimed that the Section violated his Second Amendment right.
· SCOTUS held that when the restraining order contains evidence that an individual poses a threat to the physical safety of a partner, it is consistent with the Second Amendment, that they be banned from possessing firearms while under the order.
June 21, Erlinger v. United States More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 decision, that The Fifth and Sixth Amendments say a jury must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed past offenses on different occasions under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
June 21, Smith v. Arizona More Info
· The Court held, with a unanimous decision, that when an expert uses a lab analyst's statement, who is not able to testify, to support their own opinion, and the statement is crucial, then admitting the statement as evidence implies the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
· The confrontation clause means that defendants have the right to challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution and question the witnesses who testify against them.
June 21, Department of State v. Munoz More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion, that a U.S. citizen doesn't have a fundamental right for their noncitizen spouse to be allowed into the country.
June 26, Murthy v. Missouri More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, the court has ruled in favor of Biden’s administration in its attempt to suppress misinformed social media content.
· The plaintiffs argued that the Biden administration's request to social media companies to curb misinformation violated their First Amendment rights. However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove they had the right to sue.
· Missouri and Louisiana were alleging harm for infringement of the free speech rights of their citizens, as these platforms have suppressed content, targeting conservative-leaning speech.
June 26, Snyder v. U.S. More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 opinion, that Federal law forbids giving bribes to state and local officials, but it doesn't make it illegal for those officials to accept gifts for things they've already done.
June 27, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma More Info
· With a ruling of 5-4, the court blocked the proposed Bankruptcy plan by Purdue Pharma.
· Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy due to numerous lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. They proposed a plan to settle their debts that would shield the Sackler family from personal liability in exchange for $6 billion for affected families. However, the court ruled that this plan doesn't follow bankruptcy laws and cannot proceed.
June 27, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, the court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission wants to impose civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant has the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, not a trial by an administrative tribunal.
· This ruling came after Jarkesy was found guilty of fraud in an administrative hearing by the SEC, which he then appealed. The Court of Appeals found several constitutional problems with how the case was handled.
June 27 (Dismissed), Moyle v. United States More Info
· The Court declined to hear the appeal about whether a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), takes precedence over Idaho's nearly complete abortion ban. As a result, the lower court's ruling stands.
· This means doctors in Idaho can continue to perform abortions in emergency situations as required by EMTALA, which mandates hospitals receiving Medicare funding to provide necessary treatment to pregnant women in emergencies.
June 28, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson More Info
· With a ruling of 6-3, the Court ruled that Grants Pass's laws against camping on public property do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."
· These laws include ordinances that penalize unhoused individuals for sleeping or camping in public places, even leading to criminal charges. The plaintiffs, arguing on behalf of unhoused people, claimed that these ordinances are unconstitutional because there aren't enough shelter beds available.
June 28, Fischer v. U.S. More Info
· The Court held, with a 6-3 decision, that to prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the government needs to show that the defendant either damaged or tried to damage records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, making them unavailable or unreliable for use in that proceeding.
· Fischer was charged for crimes due to his actions on January 6th, including obstructing an official proceeding.
· This interpretation limits the federal statute
June 28, Relentless v. Department of Commerce More Info
· The Court has ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to overturn the ruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which also is the ruling in this case.
· This case is similar to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, as two fishing vessel owners have sued in response to a new rule that they claim burdens them due to their longer trips and inability to qualify for exemptions.
· Both cases questioned the ruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council as it states that “it will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.”
July 1, Moody v. NetChoice More Info
· With a ruling of 9-0, the court decided that the lower court decisions are overturned, and the cases are sent back, because both the 11th Circuit and the 5th Circuit didn't correctly assess the direct challenges to the Florida and Texas laws that control big internet platforms under the First Amendment.
· The lower courts’ decisions stated that Florida's law, in its entirety for the relevant sections, could not be enforced. They ruled that Florida's rules about what can be moderated online are subject to review under the First Amendment, which protects the right to make editorial decisions.
· Florida has legislation (S.B. 7072) that prevents bias and censorship against conservative voices, such as prohibiting the de-platforming of political candidates and requiring more information on moderation policies.
· NetChoice sued the Florida officials on this First Amendment basis.
July 1, NetChoice V. Paxton More Info
· This case goes along with Moody v. NetChoice and holds the same decision.
· Texas state law, HB20m prohibits large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the speaker’s viewpoint.
July 1, Corner Post v. Board of Govs. of the Federal Reserve System More Info
· In a 6-3 decision, the Court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act isn't considered to have started, for the purpose of the standard 6-year time limit under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) for suing the government, until the plaintiff is harmed by the agency's final decision.
· The question of the court was whether a plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act begins when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).