In a Supreme Court term that coincides with the 2024 presidential primary season, the justices are at the center of many of the nation's most politically sensitive debates. At the top of the list is former president Donald Trump's eligibility to return to the White House, and a challenge to a key element of the criminal charges against him related to his efforts to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
Also this term, abortion is back at the court, with one case involving access to the medication mifepristone, widely used to terminate pregnancies, and another focused on emergency abortion care at hospitals. Gun rights and state laws restricting social media companies from removing certain political posts or accounts are in the mix as well.
A trio of cases challenge the power of federal agencies, long a target of conservatives concerned about what they consider unaccountable government bureaucrats.
Here's a look at the major cases we are tracking from now until the end of the Supreme Court's term in June or early July. We will update the list as each case is decided, or as arguments are held in those that have not yet been heard.
O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
What they ruled: Public officials can be liable for blocking or deleting critics from their social media accounts -- but only when they are acting in an official capacity and with "actual authority" to speak on behalf of the government. In a pair of unanimous decisions issued March 15, the court said public officials are still private citizens with their own constitutional rights.
Why it matters: Lower courts have been divided over how to determine when government employees are acting in an official capacity online and are therefore bound by First Amendment restrictions on censorship, and when they are acting as private citizens, with individual free speech rights. The Supreme Court decisions set the rules for interactions between the government and its citizens, who are increasingly relying on popular social media platforms to access public officials and critical community information.
Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson
What they ruled: Colorado cannot disqualify Trump from election ballots because of his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. In a decision issued March 4, the justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to bar a presidential candidate from national office, declaring that such responsibility "rests with Congress and not the states."
Why it matters: The Colorado Supreme Court and judges or officials in a few other states had ruled that Trump could be barred from returning to office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The post-Civil War era provision was intended to prevent Confederate leaders from returning to positions of power and has rarely been invoked in modern times. Had it been applied to Trump, who is again running for president, it would have upended the 2024 election by keeping the Republican front-runner off the ballot.
Trump v. United States
Oral argument: April 25
What's at stake: Whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his alleged efforts to stay in power by overturning Joe Biden's election victory. Trump's unprecedented claim that presidents cannot be criminally charged for acts they took while in the White House will directly impact whether he goes on trial in D.C. on election-obstruction charges. It could also affect his separate trials in Florida and Georgia.
Fischer v. U.S.
Oral argument: April 16
What's at stake: Whether prosecutors properly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants and Trump using a law that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding -- in this case, the disruption of Congress's certification of Biden's 2020 election victory.
Background: The case concerns whether a law written in the wake of the Enron scandal, which involved document-shredding by the company's accountants, can be used to prosecute some of the Jan. 6 rioters. If the court rules the law does not apply to efforts to block the election results, that probably would invalidate at least one of the charges Trump faces in his federal election-obstruction case in Washington.
U.S. v. Rahimi
Oral argument: Held Nov. 7
What's at stake: Whether a law disarming individuals subject to domestic-violence protective orders violates the Second Amendment.
Background: At oral argument in November, the justices seemed poised to allow the ban on gun possession for people who are subject to domestic-violence protective orders. Such a decision would be among the first to show the limits of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, the court's historic 2022 decision expanding the rights of gun owners. It requires the government to point to historical analogues when defending gun restrictions.
Garland v. Cargill
Oral argument: Held Feb. 28
What's at stake: Whether a federal ban on bump stocks -- which, when attached to rifles, speed up how quickly bullets can be fired -- is permitted under federal law.
Background: The Trump administration announced the ban after a Las Vegas gunman used the devices in 2017 to kill dozens of people in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The Biden administration is defending the rule, asserting that bump stocks fit the legal definition of machine guns, banned since 1986. At oral argument, several justices expressed concern about the carnage bump stocks can bring. But they were divided on whether the machine gun ban applies to the devices.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Oral argument: Held March 26
What's at stake: Whether to restrict access to a key abortion medication used in more than half of all U.S. abortions and first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000. Abortion medication has increased in importance as more than a dozen states have restricted or banned abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Background: At oral argument, the justices seemed unlikely to limit access to mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen used to terminate pregnancies. A majority of justices expressed deep skepticism that the antiabortion doctors challenging the Food and Drug Administration's loosening of regulations for the medication have suffered the type of direct harm that would give them legal grounds to bring the lawsuit.
Idaho v. U.S.
Oral argument: April 24
What's at stake: Whether a federal law requiring emergency room care for life-threatening cases means ER doctors in states with strict abortion bans must nevertheless terminate pregnancies in certain circumstances.
Background: After the Supreme Court eliminated the nationwide right to abortion in 2022, the Biden administration turned to a Medicare law as a narrow way to challenge state-level abortion bans in federal court. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to treat or transfer patients with emergency medical conditions regardless of ability to pay. The case will test whether that mandate also applies to emergency abortion care.
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
Oral argument: Held Feb. 26
What's at stake: Whether the First Amendment allows states to restrict social media companies from removing certain political posts or accounts.
Background: At oral argument, justices seemed skeptical that the First Amendment permits state governments to set rules for how social media companies such as Facebook and YouTube curate content. Even as justices expressed concern about the power of the platforms over public debate, a majority appeared likely to block Texas and Florida laws passed in 2021. The court's review of the laws is the highest-profile examination to date of allegations that Silicon Valley companies illegally censor conservative viewpoints.
Murthy v. Missouri
Oral argument: Held March 18
What's at stake: Whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment in its contacts with social media companies about public health and election misinformation.
Background: At oral argument, the justices seemed poised to reject the Republican-led effort to sharply limit the federal government from pressuring social media companies to remove harmful posts and misinformation from their platforms. Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri initiated the lawsuit, which raised significant and novel questions about how free-speech protections apply online.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce
Oral argument: Held Jan. 17
What's at stake: Whether courts must continue to defer to the reasonable interpretations of agency officials enforcing ambiguous federal statutes. Conservatives concerned about the power of the administrative state want to limit the discretion of agency officials and allow courts to interpret laws regulating the environment, the workplace, public health and financial markets.
Background: The court is being asked to overturn a long-standing precedent that set the framework for evaluating agency action known as "Chevron deference," from a 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. While the Supreme Court has not invoked Chevron in recent years, lower courts still rely on it. The court's conservative majority seemed inclined during argument to overturn or significantly scale back Chevron, which could weaken the government's ability to regulate vast swaths of American life.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Consumer Financial Services Association of America
Oral argument: Held Oct. 3
What's at stake: Whether the statute that provides funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violates the Constitution's Appropriations Clause.
Background: The agency was created by Congress in response to the 2008 financial crisis, putting scattered federal consumer protections under one structure. A lower-court ruling said the funding mechanism Congress adopted to ensure the CFPB's independence violates the Constitution. At oral argument, a majority of justices seemed skeptical of the broad challenge, including some conservatives who wondered if the lower court went too far.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
Oral argument: Held Nov. 29
What's at stake: Whether in-house legal proceedings used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to discipline those accused of committing fraud are unconstitutional.
Background: A lower court ruled the SEC's in-house tribunals violate the Constitution's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, that Congress exceeded its power in allowing such tribunals and that the job security provided to administrative law judges who hear such cases infringed on the executive branch's prerogatives. A broad decision could cast doubt on the work administrative law judges do across the federal government, but the justices critical of the SEC procedures seemed to be looking for a more narrow resolution during oral argument.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
Oral argument: Held Dec. 4
What's at stake: The legality of a proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would allocate billions of dollars to help ease the nation's opioid crisis but shield the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
Background: The legal issue before the court is whether, according to federal bankruptcy laws, the Sackler family can be spared from future opioid-related litigation by those who do not consent to give up their rights to sue. Purdue attorneys and the vast number of parties that agreed to the deal see it as the best hope of ending years of legal disputes and recovering at least a portion of their claims. The Justice Department opposes the plan and says another settlement could be worked out that doesn't necessarily involve releases or bankruptcy.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Oral argument: Held Oct. 11
What's at stake: Whether South Carolina's redrawn congressional map is an illegal racial gerrymander.
Background: A lower court found that South Carolina's new congressional map "exiled" 30,000 Black voters to create a district safer for a White Republican incumbent. The justices are considering whether the maps violated the Constitution's bar on using race as an unjustified and predominant factor in drawing districts.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Oral argument: Held Dec. 6
What's at stake: Whether Title VII, a federal civil rights law, specifically prohibit all discrimination in job transfer decisions.
Background: The issue for the justices is whether the statute requires an additional showing in court by the employee that the involuntary move caused a significant disadvantage, such as harm to career prospects or a change in salary or rank. At oral argument, the justices seemed prepared to make it easier for workers to pursue their employment discrimination claims.
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson
Oral argument: April 22
What's at stake: Whether state and local officials can punish homeless individuals for camping and sleeping in public spaces when shelter beds are unavailable.
Background: A lower court declared it unconstitutional to enforce anti-camping laws against homeless individuals when they have nowhere else to sleep. Democratic leaders in cities on the West Coast say the ruling has made it more difficult to address safety and public health risks created by tents and makeshift structures. Lawyers for the homeless individuals say their clients are being punished for the involuntary status of being homeless.
Moore v. U.S.
Oral argument: Held Dec. 5
What's at stake: A challenge to a provision of Trump's 2017 tax package. Experts say invalidating the provision could destabilize the nation's tax system and preemptively block Congress from creating a wealth tax.
Background: The justices are considering whether a one-time tax on offshore earnings that helped pay for Trump's massive tax cuts is permitted under the limited powers of taxation that the Constitution grants Congress. At oral argument, justices from across the ideological spectrum seemed skeptical of the challenge brought by a Washington state couple and backed by an anti-regulatory advocacy group.
Ohio v. EPA, Kinder Morgan Inc. v. EPA, American Forest & Paper Assn. v. EPA, U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA
Oral argument: Feb. 21
What's at stake: The court is reviewing the Biden administration's plan to limit smog-forming pollutants from power plants and other industrial facilities that cause problems for their downwind neighbors in other states.
Background: At oral argument, the conservative majority seemed poised to halt the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to cut emissions from power plants and factories to reduce pollution that blows into neighboring states, a setback to an ambitious federal initiative to cut lung-damaging smog. The initiative was challenged by three Republican-governed states and industry groups, who said they could not bear the cost and questioned whether the program would work, especially because some states have been excluded by other legal challenges.
Robert Barnes and Tobi Raji contributed to this report. Justice illustrations by Shelly Tan.
This article was downloaded by calibre from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/supreme-court-cases-abortion-trump-guns/
Previous | Articles | Sections | Next |