Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, the DC Download, to get updates on what’s happening on the Hill, what we are reading, key issues to watch, and progressive analysis and tools.

 
 

DC Download 06.18.2024

The Supreme Court’s 2023-24 Term

Welcome to this week’s Special Edition DC Download, where we’ll be taking a look at some of the Supreme Court’s key cases this term. Since the start of its term, the Court has considered cases covering civil rights, voting rights, consumer protections, whistleblower protections, executive branch powers, and so much more. While this list is not exhaustive, this sampling of cases demonstrates how far-reaching the Court’s decisions and their implications could be for the public. 

A full list of cases before the Supreme Court this term is available here.

The DC Download will be taking a brief break and will return to weekly updates in July! Thanks for your loyal readership.

Table of Contents:

 

Decided Cases: 

  • Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

  • Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited

  • Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

  • Garland v. Cargill

  • McElrath v. Georgia

  • Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

  • O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

  • Trump v. Anderson

Undecided Cases:

  • City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

  • Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

  • Moore v. United States 

  • Moyle v. United States

  • Trump v. United States

  • United States v. Rahimi

 

 

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

On October 4, 2023, 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. Civil rights testers have long been part of enforcing civil rights laws, including the ADA. 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 its website and is now in compliance with the ADA. Moreover, the plaintiff in July 2024 requested to dismiss the case after one of her attorneys was suspended. 

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision granted the plaintiff’s request and dismissed the case. The Court, however, did not answer whether civil rights testers have standing to sue. If, in future cases, the Supreme Court rules against civil rights testers, 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: 

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

On October 11, 2023, 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 argued 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 maintained 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 racialgerrymandering, 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). 

On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled in favor of South Carolina’s Republican state legislature and rejected the NAACP’s argument that the redrawn districts had improperly relied too heavily on race, clearing the way for South Carolina to use the congressional maps moving forward. 

Recommended Reading: 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited

On October 3, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA), a case concerning 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, representing pay-day lenders, argued that 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.” 

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and held that the CFPB funding structure fits within the historical context of legislative appropriations. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that Congress specified the funding source and how it should be used. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the funding structure circumvents the Constitution and undermines legislative control over federal expenditures.

Recommended Reading: 

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

On April 24, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case challenging the FDA’s approval of and expanded access to mifepristone, a drug used in over half of all medication abortions in the United States. The plaintiffs, several doctors and medical groups opposed to abortion, argued that the FDA's actions in 2016 and 2021 to relax restrictions on mifepristone were flawed and that they had standing to sue due to potential harm from having to treat complications from the drug. The FDA, however, highlighted the drug’s safety and argued that their regulation processes were thorough and scientifically sound.

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to sue. The Court emphasized that ideological objections do not confer standing and noted that federal conscience laws protect doctors from being forced to perform procedures against their beliefs. While this decision represents a significant win for abortion rights and ensures that mifepristone remains widely available, the possibility of renewed legal challenges or regulatory actions under a different administration remains.

Recommended Reading: 

Garland v. Cargill

On April 24, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill, a case challenging a 2018 rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns under federal law. Bump stocks are devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire at rates similar to automatic weapons by enabling the trigger to reset and fire rapidly. The case originated after the tragic 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where the shooter used bump stocks to kill 60 people and injure over 500 others. The plaintiffs, led by Michael Cargill, argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority by reclassifying bump stocks without clear congressional authorization. The government, defending the rule, argued that bump stocks effectively turn semiautomatic weapons into machine guns, which are banned under federal law. 

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the bump stock ban, clarifying that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because they require separate trigger functions for each shot. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress could have explicitly banned such devices but did not; thus, the ATF’s interpretation was incorrect. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in dissent, warned that the decision could have deadly consequences, allowing high-rate-of-fire weapons back into civilian hands.

Recommended Reading: 

McElrath v. Georgia

On November 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard 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, Damian 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 the double jeopardy clause. 

On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion ruled against the State of Georgia and found that McElrath’s malice murder acquittal by reason of insanity constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. 

Recommended Reading: 

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

On October 10, 2023, 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 (SOX) 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. 

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled against UBS Securities, finding that a plaintiff does not need to prove retaliatory intent to establish causation in a SOX retaliation claim. This decision will significantly strengthen protections for whistleblowers by ensuring that individuals can come forward with concerns about fraud or securities violations without fear of unjust reprisal. 

Recommended Reading: 

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

On October 31, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, cases that examined whether public officials violate the First Amendment when they block critics on their personal social media accounts. 

On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that officials can be held liable for blocking critics on social media and provided clarity by establishing a new test: public officials can be sued for First Amendment violations if they had "actual authority to speak on behalf of the state on a particular matter" and exercised that authority in the posts in question. This ruling sets a significant precedent, emphasizing that while public officials do not surrender their First Amendment rights upon taking office, their actions on social media platforms can constitute government action if they speak on behalf of the state, thereby prohibiting them from blocking critics.

Recommended Reading: 

Trump v. Anderson

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, former President Donald Trump’s challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that he is ineligible to serve as president due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Central to the case is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, historically intended to disqualify from office those who had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, raising the question of whether this provision applies to presidential candidates. The Colorado Supreme Court had previously ruled that Trump is ineligible to serve as president under this clause, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow states to bar the former president from the ballot and that only Congress can disqualify a presidential candidate under the insurrection clause. The ruling, however, did not decide whether the former president engaged in an insurrection by attempting to subvert the 2020 election results. 

Recommended Reading: 

 

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, a case that challenges the legality of criminalizing people experiencing homelessness. At the heart of the case is whether the City of Grants Pass can enforce ordinances that fine or arrest homeless individuals for sleeping in public spaces when no adequate shelter options are available. This legal challenge follows the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that such punitive measures violate the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Advocates argue that criminalizing basic life-sustaining activities, such as sleeping, lacks proportionality and humanity. Conversely, city officials assert that the ability to enforce these ordinances is crucial for maintaining public order and safety. 

The Supreme Court's decision could fundamentally reshape how cities nationwide address the visibility of homelessness in public spaces.

Recommended Reading: 

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

On January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case challenges 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 overrule or weaken Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Court will 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. 

Recommended Reading: 

Moore v. United States

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. United States, a case that challenges the constitutionality of a tax provision under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law created a one-time Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) on foreign earnings, which affected plaintiffs Charles and Kathleen Moore, who own a 13 percent stake in a foreign company. Despite never receiving dividends from their investment, the Moores were taxed almost $15,000 on their share of the company's earnings since 1986. They argue that the MRT imposes an unconstitutional direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the U.S. Constitution. Lower courts upheld the tax, finding it within Congress' power under the 16th Amendment and stating that "realization of income is not a constitutional requirement." 

If the Supreme Court sides with the Moores, it could redefine the scope of congressional taxation powers, potentially restricting Congress’s ability to impose taxes on unrealized income.

Recommended Reading: 

Moyle v. United States

On April 24, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moyle v. United States, a case that examines the conflict between state-level abortion bans and federal health care requirements. The case stems from Idaho's strict abortion law and its potential violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates that hospitals provide necessary stabilizing treatment for any emergency medical condition. The plaintiffs, including health care providers and patients, argue that Idaho's law illegally restricts access to abortion in medical emergencies, conflicting with EMTALA's directive that hospitals must offer such care when it is necessary to stabilize the patient's condition. The case asks whether federal law preempts state-imposed abortion bans in the context of emergency medical care. 

The Supreme Court's decision has the potential to significantly impact not only the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights but also the operational realities health care providers face and access to emergency medical care for pregnant individuals across the country.

Recommended Reading: 

Trump v. United States

On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a case that deals with presidential immunity and accountability. The case centers on whether former President Donald Trump could be prosecuted for his alleged attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Trump's legal team argued that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity and that the Constitution shields them from criminal prosecution for official acts. The government pointed out that the Supreme Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official and raised concerns about the potential erosion of accountability for presidential misconduct. 

If the Court sides with the former president, it could set a precedent that places former presidents above the law, allowing future leaders to evade accountability for criminal actions. A ruling against the former president would reinforce the principle that no one is above the law.

Recommended Reading: 

United States v. Rahimi

On November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that 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 23 percent. The future of these proven policies hangs in the balance. 

Recommended Reading: 

 

June: LGBTQ+ Pride Month

June: Immigrant Heritage Month 

June 15-24: House is in recess

June 19: Juneteenth

June 20: World Refugee Day

June 24: Second Anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

June 24-July 7: Senate is in recess

June 26: Ninth Anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges

June 30: Supreme Court begins recess

July 4: Independence Day

July 9: 156th Anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment

July 14: 9th Anniversary of Iran Nuclear Deal 

July 19: 176th Anniversary of Women’s Rights Convention at Seneca Falls

July 26: 34th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

July 30: 59th Anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid