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 06.26.2023

Welcome to a Special Edition DC Download! The Supreme Court this term has considered a diverse range of cases that have the potential to shape our society and legal landscape. From affirmative action and LGBTQ+ discrimination to voting rights and student debt relief, the Court's decisions have the power to impact individuals and communities across the nation. With the Supreme Court’s term likely coming to an end this week, today we’re looking at some of the key cases they’ve considered this year, including pending cases that may be decided as early as tomorrow. 

 

Table of Contents:

 

 

The People vs. SCOTUS: Understanding the 2023 Supreme Court Term

The conservative supermajority in the U.S. Supreme Court has finished another term where basic rights and protections hung in the balance. We’ll take stock of what’s happened and explore what this term’s rulings mean for Congress and for all of our civil rights. Join the Progressive Caucus Action Fund for a Tools for Progress briefing: “The People vs. SCOTUS: Understanding the 2023 Supreme Court Term” on Thursday, July, 27th at 1pm ET. You can register here. 

 

 

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard

These two cases challenge the use of race in university admissions. The plaintiffs allege that using race as a factor in admissions violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. These cases were originally consolidated and then were separated out again to allow Justice Jackson to participate in the UNC case (she recused herself in the Harvard case). Both cases were brought by notorious anti-civil rights plaintiffs who are asking the Court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 ruling that allowed universities to consider race in admissions as long as it was “narrowly tailored to further compelling government interests.” The plaintiffs want to ban universities from considering race in admissions at all, something that will drastically reduce opportunities for students of color, dramatically worsen the quality of discussion and learning in universities for all students, and further entrench white supremacy and the legacy of segregation in our school systems. Like Dobbs, this case is asking the court to overturn settled precedent. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 31, 2023. 

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

In December, the Supreme Court heard arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a case concerning LGBTQ+ rights and freedom of speech, which poses a serious threat to anti-discrimination laws nationwide. The plaintiff, a graphic designer who has never actually refused a client, is challenging a Colorado law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers. This case follows Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which a Colorado baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. While the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado violated the baker's rights by evincing hostility towards his religious beliefs, it did not rule on the constitutionality of the underlying Colorado law protecting LGBTQ+ people's access to public accommodations—the same law at the center of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Notably, this case was not granted on religious liberty grounds, but on free speech grounds, as the plaintiff argues that designing a website for a same-sex wedding requires them to send a “message” they do not support. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, it could establish a precedent for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals and even other groups. As a result, nationwide protections for these communities may be eroded.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

In November, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Robert Mallory was an employee of the Norfolk Southern Railway Co. who developed cancer after being exposed to toxic substances on the job. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the company can be sued in Pennsylvania because it is registered to do business there even though the incident in question occurred outside of Pennsylvania. If the Court rules against Mr. Mallory, it will make it more difficult for people to sue corporations and easier for corporations to choose a venue for a court case that is to their advantage. 

Moore v. Harper

In this case, Republican state legislators in North Carolina are trying to validate discriminatory congressional maps based on the so-called “independent state legislature” theory. This invented, extremist theory claims that the Constitution gives sole power to regulate federal elections to state legislatures. It alleges that neither state courts nor governors can interfere with federal elections, no matter how egregious or discriminatory the legislature’s actions are. If the Court sides with North Carolina, it could lend credence to a theory that would strip state courts and governors of the power to strike down anti-democratic laws or check radical and anti-democratic actions by gerrymandered and extremist state legislatures. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case on December 7, 2022. 

Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown

These two cases are challenging President Biden’s student debt relief program, which would provide debt relief for up to $10,000 for most borrowers and up to $20,000 to borrowers who received Pell Grants. The cases were brought by a group of conservative states and by two borrowers. Arguments concerned whether Congress intended to give the President broad authority to provide debt relief in the HEROES Act and whether the challengers had standing to challenge the program—in other words, whether they could prove that they were harmed by the Biden Administration providing relief to the up to 40 million people burdened by student debt who could benefit from the program. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for both cases in February. 

 

 

Allen v. Milligan

The plaintiffs in this case challenged the Alabama congressional map enacted in 2021 for unfairly weakening Black voters’ power to coalesce around a candidate, a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). At oral arguments, Alabama claimed that in order to establish a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a plaintiff must show that the state’s enacted map diverges from a neutrally drawn plan and that only intentional racial discrimination could explain the deviation from an neutrally drawn map. In other words, if the state can offer any justification for the map that is race neutral, no matter how flimsy, it would not be in violation of the VRA. By this standard, poll taxes and reading tests would both be allowed. On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 opinion sided with the plaintiffs and held that the districting plan adopted by the state of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated section 2 of the VRA. 

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

This case examined whether California can require pork and egg producers in other states to meet minimum standards of animal welfare in order to sell products in California. The plaintiffs argued that California's Proposition 12, which sets stringent animal welfare rules, imposed an unconstitutional burden on out-of-state pork producers. At its heart, the case examined how dramatically state laws can impact activities outside of the state in question. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that Proposition 12 did not violate the constitution and that states should be free to enact their own laws. 

 

 

Sackett v. EPA

In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision redefined which waters fall under the purview of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs, the Sacketts, filled in wetlands in northwest Idaho that were crucial to filtering water flowing into Priest Lake, an essential resource for drinking water, recreation, and the local economy. They argued that the wetland they filled was not a protected "water of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, because there was dry land separating it from other water bodies. On the other hand, the EPA argued that the wetland was indeed protected due to its ecological and hydrological connections to other water bodies. Therefore, any activity potentially damaging to it, such as filling it without a permit, was subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, the Court sided with the plaintiffs, adopting their interpretation of "waterway of the U.S." This decision jeopardizes protections for tens of thousands of bodies of water, including critical wetlands across the U.S. and hampers the EPA's capacity to prevent toxic contamination in the country’s waterways and drinking water. 

Haaland v. Brackeen

The case challenged a law, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), put in place to protect Native Children and tribal sovereignty after decades of government-sponsored forced removal of Native American children from their families. The plaintiff claimed that the ICWA violated the 14th amendment by prioritizing Native families for placement of Native children. The government and Tribal governments argued that the distinction is not race-based but based on the fact that Native Americans are citizens of sovereign Tribal nations. The plaintiffs are funded and backed by a number of right-wing and corporate interests who are seeking to weaken Tribal sovereignty laws. In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the ICWA, recognizing the historical context of the law and importance of preserving Tribal sovereignty and cultural connections for the well-being of Native children and communities.

Arizona v. Navajo Nation

In the case of Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the Navajo Nation's access to the Colorado River. The conflict stemmed from an 1868 treaty that designated the Navajo reservation as their permanent home after their forced displacement. The Navajo Nation argued that the treaty implied a commitment to water access and that the U.S. government had an obligation to evaluate their water needs and allocate water accordingly. However, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the treaty did not require the federal government to ensure the tribe had access to water, emphasizing that the responsibility for addressing water needs lies with Congress and the President rather than the Judiciary.

 

 

U.S. v. Texas

 In the case brought by Texas and other states challenging ICE's enforcement priorities, the Supreme Court in a 8-1 ruling found that the states lacked standing to sue the government over its immigration priorities. The states argued the government’s priorities improperly limited the scope of enforcement and conflicted with the mandatory detention provisions outlined in immigration laws. The government maintained that the priorities were within the realm of executive discretion and did not conflict with the relevant statutes. The Supreme Court determined that the states' alleged harms were speculative to establish standing and emphasized that immigration enforcement decisions fall within the executive branch's discretion. The ruling reaffirmed the broad powers of the executive branch to set immigration enforcement priorities without interference from lawsuits.

 

 

Reed v. Goertz

Rodney Reed was convicted of murder in 1998 based on DNA evidence from a now discredited “expert.” Reed, who is Black, was convicted of killing a white woman with whom he had a romantic relationship despite substantial evidence pointing to her white police officer fiancé. In 2014, Reed challenged the adequacy of state DNA testing procedures but was denied by a district court and the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and allowed Rodney Reed's federal lawsuit, based on due process, to proceed. 

Cruz v. Arizona

In the case of Cruz v. Arizona, John Montenegro Cruz, who had been sentenced to death in Arizona, challenged a trial court's decision to block him from informing the jury that he would be ineligible for parole if they chose a life sentence. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the state court's ruling, which denied Cruz's claim based on procedural grounds, was a novel and unsupported interpretation of the law, and reaffirmed defendants' rights in capital punishment cases. 

Jones v. Hendrix

Marcus Jones was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and has repeatedly challenged this conviction. After a 2019 ruling (Rehaif v. U.S.) found that courts must prove that an individual knew possessing a firearm is unlawful, Jones challenged his conviction again. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Marcus Jones was barred from bringing a new challenge based on a subsequent court ruling that changed the standard of proof required for his crime. 

Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski 

This case asked whether a private individual can file a federal civil rights claim using Congress’ spending clause. It involved Gorgi Talevski, a dementia patient receiving care at a state-run nursing facility in Indiana. His wife, Ivanka Talevski, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA). The district court initially dismissed the case, stating that FNHRA does not provide a private right of action, but a U.S. Appeals Court reversed the decision. In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can file a federal civil rights claim for FNHRA violations. Applying the private right of action to Spending Clause laws is an important part of ensuring that ordinary people can enforce their rights by turning to the courts for relief. 

Arellano v. McDonough

 This case examined whether disability benefits for a disabled veteran should be paid retroactively from the date of discharge instead of from the date of application for benefits under ‘equitable tolling theory.’ Mr. Arellano, a Navy veteran, had several service-connected ailments that prevented him from filing his disability claim earlier and asked the Ccourt to waive the one-year filing deadline to submit disability claims when circumstances prevent applicants from filing immediately. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Arellano and found that the deadline can not be extended. 

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

This case was about students with disabilities and their right to an education. It stemmed from the case of Miguel Perez, a deaf student who was denied a qualified sign language interpreter by his school district. After he filed a claim against the district under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the IDEA claim was settled with the school district. When the ADA claim was filed in federal court, it was thrown out because the IDEA claim had not been fully pursued. This case reviewed whether Perez had to fully pursue the case under IDEA before moving forward even though it had been settled. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miguel Perez and found that an ADA lawsuit may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of IDEA.

Glacier Northwest v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters

In this case, Glacier Northwest, a concrete company in Seattle, sued the Teamsters after a 2017 strike resulted in the loss of some of Glacier’s concrete. While the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to strike, it does not protect striking employees who damage or vandalize property. Glacier Northwest argued that the union's actions constituted intentional property destruction, while the Teamsters maintained that the NLRA preempted the lawsuit and that the strike was protected activity. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that the NLRA did not preempt the lawsuit and that the union's strike went beyond the conduct protected by the NLRA.

Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google

These cases reviewed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives social media platforms protections from legal liability for the content they host. The cases stemmed from lawsuits against Google and Twitter by the families of people killed in terrorist attacks who allege that the platforms helped spread terrorist content that contributed to their loved ones’ deaths. The Supreme Court ruled against the families who sought to hold tech companies liable for allowing terrorists to use their platforms. In the unanimous opinion for Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court notes a “lack of concrete nexus between” Twitter and the terrorist attack that killed Jordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf, and that siding with the family would mean that tech companies could be held liable for terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. In Gonzalez v. Google, the Justices sent the case back to the court of appeals for it to take another look in light of the decision in Twitter v. Taamneh.