Cases to Watch: The Supreme Court’s 2023-2024 Term
Updated November 3, 2023
Author: Ricardo Pacheco, Legislative Affairs Associate (ricardo@progressivecaucuscenter.org)
Last month, the Supreme Court started its 2023-2024 term. This explainer highlights a selection of notable cases the Court will consider covering multiple subjects, including civil rights, voting rights, consumer protections, whistleblower protections, executive branch powers, and more. While not exhaustive, this sampling of cases demonstrates how far-reaching the Court’s decisions and their implications could be for the public.
There are several additional cases the Supreme Court may consider this term that could have similarly widespread consequences. These include Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, in which far-right doctors are challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone, a medication used in abortion care and managing miscarriages; Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, a case seeking to ban race-conscious policies beyond university admissions to K-12 education, fair housing, environmental protections, and beyond; and Texas v. United States, which will determine the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program’s fate. Because the Court has not yet agreed to hear these cases, they are not included below. Nonetheless, they will be important to monitor as the Court’s term continues.
The cases below are listed chronologically based on oral arguments’ date. A full list of cases before the Supreme Court this term is available here.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited
On October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA). This case concerns the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure. Congress created the CFPB following the 2008 financial crisis to regulate financial institutions and track consumer complaints. The law creating the CFPB directs the Federal Reserve—not Congress’ annual appropriations process—to fund the agency. The plaintiffs, which represent pay-day lenders, argue this funding structure violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which says “[n]o money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” If the Supreme Court agrees, every CFPB rule and regulation could be called into question, wrecking havoc for consumers and the financial world. Moreover, if this funding structure is declared unconstitutional, then the constitutionality of other federal agencies, like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and more will also be under threat.
Recommended Reading:
Court divided over funding mechanism for consumer watchdog (SCOTUSblog)
CFPB v. CFSA: How the Supreme Court Could Harm Consumers and Financial Markets (CAP)
The Surprising Argument That Could Save America’s Consumer Watchdog Agency (The New Republic)
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer
On October 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, concerning people with disabilities’ rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) enforcement. The plaintiff, civil rights tester Deborah Laufer, sued a hotel for not providing accessibility information on its website, even though she had no intention of actually staying there. Acheson Hotels maintains that because Laufer did not intend to stay at the hotel and was, therefore, not harmed, she has no standing to sue, and the Court should rule against her. However, the hotel has updated their website and is now in compliance with the ADA. Civil rights testers are a long established way of enforcing civil rights laws, including the ADA. If the Supreme Court rules against Laufer because she lacks standing, it might hinder advocates working to ensure ADA compliance across the nation—which, in turn, might curtail people with disabilities’ rights and threaten other methods for establishing violations of civil rights laws.
Recommended Reading:
The Supreme Court argues about how to make a terrible civil rights case go away (Vox)
The 19th Explains: The Supreme Court case that could gut the Americans with Disabilities Act (The 19th)
Justices consider civil rights tester’s right to sue (SCOTUSblog)
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
On October 10, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, a case about whistleblower retaliation. The plaintiff, Trevor Murray, sued his previous employer, UBS Securities after he was fired for reporting that he had been pressured to skew his research for the company’s benefit in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. His lawsuit relies on a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that prohibits publicly-traded companies from retaliating against employees who report violations of federal securities laws and regulations. UBS Securities contends that Murray failed to prove that the company acted with retaliatory intent when he was fired. If the Court sides with UBS Securities, it could make it more difficult for whistleblowers who claim retaliation to sue their employers.
Recommended Reading:
US Supreme Court justices skeptical of high bar for whistleblower lawsuits (Reuters)
US Supreme Court hears arguments in landmark whistleblower case (Jurist)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
On October 11, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, a case concerning racial gerrymandering in South Carolina. The NAACP argues that South Carolina’s Republican legislature drew the state’s congressional maps to purposefully target Black communities and dilute their voting power in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. However, the South Carolina State Legislature maintains that they did not use race to determine the new maps, but instead focused on partisan preferences to draw the districts. While the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act prohibit racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering cases fall outside federal courts’ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated in state courts or addressed via legislation in Congress (Rucho v. Common Cause). If the Court sides with the South Carolina State Legislature, proving that states are engaging in racial gerrymandering could become more difficult, thereby hindering the public’s ability to fight unfair maps.
Recommended Reading:
The Supreme Court appears determined to make it easy to draw gerrymanders (Vox)
Takeaways from Supreme Court Arguments Over South Carolina’s Congressional Map (Democracy Docket)
Justices question finding that S.C. district was unconstitutional racial gerrymander (SCOTUSblog)
United States v. Rahimi
On November 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, which concerns gun ownership for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The plaintiff, Zackey Rahimi, was under a February 2020 restraining order after assaulting his former girlfriend when police searched his home and found a rifle and pistol. This violated a 1994 statute barring anyone with active domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Rahimi pled guilty but continued appealing his case. After the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York state’s law requiring a permit for carrying concealed weapons in public places unconstitutional, an appeals court vacated Rahimi’s conviction and deemed the 1994 law unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether the 1994 law that prohibits firearm possession by people with active domestic violence restraining orders violates the 2nd Amendment. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have implemented extreme risk protection laws that allow for a court to remove firearms if a court finds there is an imminent risk of violence. Studies have found that preventing domestic abusers from accessing firearms can reduce intimate partner violence by as much as 25 percent. The future of these proven policies hangs in the balance.
Recommended Reading:
The Supreme Court will decide if abusive spouses have a right to own guns (Vox)
The 19th Explains: How guns and domestic violence intersect in a Supreme Court case (The 19th)
McElrath v. Georgia
On November 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in McElrath v. Georgia. This case concerns the 5th Amendment’s double jeopardy clause, which protects an accused person from being tried repeatedly for the same crime. The plaintiff, Damien McElrath, was found guilty of aggravated assault and felony murder, but at the same time, not guilty by reason of insanity for malice murder and was acquitted. However, after the state appealed, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated all the verdicts, including the acquittal, maintaining that the verdicts were inconsistent. In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, McElrath asserts that because he now faces retrial on a charge for which he was previously acquitted, the state violates of the double jeopardy clause. If the Court sides with Georgia, appellate courts could vacate acquittals and re-try a defendant on the acquitted charges, despite the Constitution’s double jeopardy protections.
Recommended Reading:
McElrath v. Georgia (ACLU)
Justices Take Up Double Jeopardy Challenge on Acquitted Conduct (Bloomberg Law)
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
This case concerns a challenge to the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which holds that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of statutes as long as that interpretation is reasonable. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo arose after a group of commercial fishermen sued the National Marine Fisheries Service for a rule that required the industry to fund monitoring programs. The plaintiffs argue that federal laws regulating fisheries did not authorize the government to create industry-funded monitoring requirements. Lower courts sided with the government, citing the Chevron case and finding that the agency reasonably interpreted its authority to create the new rule. Now, Loper Bright Enterprises is asking the Supreme Court to either overrule or weaken Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Court will now decide whether judges or agency experts are better positioned to decide crucial public policy questions. A ruling for the plaintiffs could prevent agencies from taking actions that Congress did not direct explicitly. This would make it impossible for agencies to respond promptly to the country’s emerging needs and move more power into the hands of the courts. The Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments.
Recommended Reading: