SCOTUS Summer Recap
With Congress back in their respective states and districts during the August recess, we would like to step back and reflect on this Summer's U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) cases that took a backseat in the news cycle while major pieces of legislation were being considered and voted on.
This summer, the conservative majority was confident and dominant, overturning precedent at times. As usual, this past term featured unusual alliances at times and a handful of unanimous decisions. There were even unexpected liberal wins when it came to voting rights issues.
However, as Chief Justice Roberts steered his court through political attacks, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas fought allegations of ethics improprieties, the liberal minority sought to pick off conservative votes, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made her debut, one constant remained: SCOTUS continues to bend right, and it could remain in that position for decades.
Here are the facts and decisions from some of the cases on SCOTUS' Summer 2023 docket.
Environment
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
Facts of the Case: Michael and Chantall Sackett own a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, and want to build a home there. However, shortly after they began placing sand and gravel, the EPA told them that they could not build on their lot because construction on the land violated the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, the Sacketts’ lot contained wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” regulated by the Act, so they needed to remove the sand and gravel and restore the property to its natural state.
Question: What is the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act?
Conclusion: The Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters” of the United States—i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.
Opinions: After a 9-0 vote, Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions.
Elections
Facts of the Case: After the 2020 Census, in which North Carolina gained an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus required redistricting of the state, North Carolina’s Republican-majority state legislature passed a partisan gerrymander. The map was challenged in state court, and in February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map for violating the state constitution’s “free elections clause” and other provisions. The legislature proposed a second gerrymandered map, so the court ordered a special master to create a map for the 2022 congressional elections. The legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review based on an argument that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures alone the authority to regulate federal elections—the so-called Independent State Legislature theory.
Question: Under the U.S. Constitution, does the state legislative body, independent of any constraints by state courts or other laws, have sole authority to regulate federal elections?
Conclusion: The Federal Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. Therefore, the justices did not bar the North Carolina Supreme Court from reviewing the legislature’s congressional districting plans for compliance with North Carolina law.
Opinions: After a 6-3 vote on June 27, 2023, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Gorsuch and Alito joined.
Facts of the Case: After the 2020 census, Alabama created a redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the districts in the plan is a majority-Black district. Registered voters and several organizations challenged the map, arguing that the state had illegally packed Black voters into a single district while dividing other clusters of Black voters across multiple districts. The challengers alleged that the map effectively minimizes the number of districts in which Black voters can elect their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policies.
Question: Does Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Conclusion: The district court correctly applied binding Supreme Court precedent to conclude that Alabama’s redistricting map likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Opinions: After a tight 5-4 vote, 5-4, Chief Justice Roberts filed the majority opinion. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the opinion in full. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring with one exception. Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions.
Technology
Facts of the Case: The question Taamneh raises is whether platforms can be found liable for aiding and abetting terrorist acts under section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The Taamneh plaintiffs’ theory is that Twitter aided and abetted a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey because it had general knowledge that ISIS used its platform for organizing and recruitment purposes and did not do enough to remove all ISIS content. This, the plaintiffs argued, helped ISIS become “the most feared terrorist group in the world” and substantially assisted the group in carrying out the 2017 (and presumably other) attacks.
Question: Does an internet platform “knowingly” provide substantial assistance merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use? May an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff still be liable for aiding and abetting?
Conclusion: Twitter did not “knowingly” provide substantial assistance and thus cannot be said to have aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey.
Opinions: The decision was unanimous with Justice Thomas filing the majority opinion and Justice Jackson filing a concurring opinion.
Facts of the Case: Nohemi Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen, was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015—one of several terrorist attacks that same day. The day afterwards, the foreign terrorist organization ISIS claimed responsibility by issuing a written statement and releasing a YouTube video. Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook, claiming, among other things, that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use its platform—specifically YouTube—“to recruit members, plan terrorist attacks, issue terrorist threats, instill fear, and intimidate civilian populations.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that because Google uses computer algorithms that suggest content to users based on their viewing history, it assists ISIS in spreading its message. Gonzalez claimed that all three platforms were also liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to take meaningful or aggressive action to prevent terrorists from using its services, even though they did not play an active role in the specific act of international terrorism that actually injured Gonzalez.
Question: Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider?
Conclusion: Citing its decision in Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court declined to reach the question presented in this case and vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.
Opinions: The opinion of the court, not authored by any one justice, can be found here.
Civil Rights and Liberties
Facts of the Case: Gerald Groff was a Christian and U.S. Postal Service worker. He refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. USPS offered to find employees to swap shifts with him, but on numerous occasions, no co-worker would swap, and Groff did not work. USPS subsequently fired him. Groff sued USPS (with DeJoy being the Postmaster General) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming USPS failed to reasonably accommodate his religion because the shift swaps did not fully eliminate the conflict.
Question: Is inconvenience to coworkers an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing an accommodation requested for religious exercise?
Conclusion: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
Opinions: In a unanimous vote, Justice Alito filed the majority opinion, and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed the concurring opinion. There were no dissenting opinions since the decision was unanimous.
Facts of the Case: Helaman Hansen ran an immigration-advising service charging undocumented immigrants for (incorrect) advice on how to achieve U.S. citizenship. Hansen made promises to hundreds of noncitizens, offering them a pathway to U.S. citizenship through a fraudulent scheme called "adult adoption." He reportedly earned nearly $2 million from this illegal operation. Hansen was later convicted and sentenced for, among other federal crimes, two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for private financial gain.
Question: Does the federal prohibition on encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Conclusion: The federal law criminalizing “encouraging or inducing” illegal immigration—forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
Opinions: The judgment was made in a 7-2 vote with Justice Barrett filing the majority opinion on June 23, 2023. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
Education and Loan-Related Cases
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
Facts of the Case: Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard College over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of white applicants. Harvard argued that its admissions process adhered to the requirements outlined in the Supreme Court's previous decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed for limited affirmative action in college admissions.
Question: May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Conclusion: The Harvard admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision highlighted that the identified compelling interests, such as promoting diversity and acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, were not sufficiently measurable to justify race-based admissions. The Court emphasized that college admissions are zero-sum, and any benefit provided to some applicants necessarily comes at the expense of others.
Opinions: This case caught the attention of the nation and resulted in a 6-3 vote. Chief Justice Roberts filed the majority opinion, Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas filed concurring opinions, and Justices Jackson and Sotomayor filed the dissenting opinion.
Facts of the Case: In 2020, then-presidential candidate Joseph Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. After winning the election, the Biden administration announced its intent to forgive, via executive action, $10,000 in student loans for borrowers with an annual income of less than $125,000. Nebraska and five other states challenged the forgiveness program, arguing that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Question: 1) Do Nebraska and other states have judicial standing to challenge the student-debt relief program and 2) Does the student-debt relief program exceed the statutory authority of the U.S. Secretary of Education, or does it violate the Administrative Procedure Act?
Conclusion: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Opinions: Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion after a 6-3 vote. Justice Barrett filed the concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.
Other
Facts of the Case: Billy Raymond Counterman repeatedly contacted a person over Facebook in 2014, sending her “creepy” messages from numerous different accounts even after she repeatedly blocked him. Some of the messages implied that Counterman was watching her and saying that he wanted her to die or be killed. He was charged with one count of stalking, one count of stalking, and one count of harassment. Before trial, the prosecution dismissed the count of stalking. Counterman claimed that the remaining charges, as applied to his Facebook messages, would violate his right to free speech under the First Amendment because they were not “true threats.”
Question: To establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, must the government show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement?
Conclusion: To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the State must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.
Opinions: After a 7-2 vote, Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion, Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, and Justices Thomas and Barrett filed dissenting opinions.