US supreme court decisions: the biggest cases this term and their outcomes

default

The US supreme court has wrapped up its 2023-2024 term, issuing a string of blockbuster decisions with enormous implications for American democracy, individual and civil rights, and the basic functioning of the federal government.

Once again, the conservative supermajority, with half its justices appointed by Donald Trump, was in the driver’s seat – strengthening the power of the presidency in its immunity ruling for Trump, and overturning precedent in a dramatic blow to the administrative state. There were crumbs of comfort for liberals, including a gun rights ruling related to domestic violence and a unanimous decision upholding access to a key abortion pill, but what the US public increasingly sees as an activist court majority continues in full swing.

default

Some of the major decisions from this term’s docket:

***

Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The US supreme court ruled in Trump v United States that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, dramatically reducing the likelihood that the federal criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to stop the transfer of power will proceed before the 2024 election.

The court’s conservative majority – which Trump helped create – found that presidents are protected from prosecution for official actions that extend to the “outer perimeter” of the office, but could face charges for conduct undertaken in a personal or private manner.

***

Returns decision on Republican-backed social media laws to lower courts

^{Decided 9-0}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Majority

• Sotomayor – Majority

In NetChoice v Paxton, the supreme court threw out judicial decisions involving challenges to Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that restricted the power of social media companies to remove or down-rank objectionable content.

The justices directed lower appeals courts to reconsider a pair of decisions regarding these 2021 laws authorizing the states to regulate the content-moderation practices of large social media platforms. Tech industry trade groups had challenged the two laws under the US constitution’s first amendment limits on the government’s ability to restrict speech. The ruling came on the final day of the supreme court’s term that began in October.

***

Court strikes down 40-year precedent, reducing power of federal agencies

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court overturned one of its own most important precedents, the Chevron doctrine, that for the past 40 years has guided the work of the federal government in critical areas of public life, from food and drug safety to environmental protection.

In a ruling in two cases – Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo; Relentless v Department of Commerce – that the Biden administration warned could have a “convulsive” impact on the functioning of government, the court’s hardline conservative majority voted as a block to throw out the supreme court’s own 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision required the courts to defer to the knowledge of government experts in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws. It has long been a target of the conservative legal movement.

***

Decision to narrow obstruction law could affect prosecutions of 6 January rioters – and Trump

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Minority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court narrowed the statute that prosecutors have relied on in the cases of hundreds of rioters who took part in the January 6 Capitol attack for obstruction of an official proceeding – a ruling with profound implications for participants on that day in 2021.

The 6-3 ruling in Fischer v United States could also affect the federal criminal case against Donald Trump, who is charged with similar offences in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the assault. The decision stems from the conviction of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, who took part in Trump’s so-called “stop the steal” rally on the morning of January 6 before then entering the Capitol with the mob.

***

Unhoused people sleeping outside can be fined and jailed

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court ruled that cities in the US west can criminalize unhoused people for sleeping outside even when they lack access to shelter. The ruling is a victory for Grants Pass, Oregon, which for years has prohibited sleeping and camping in its public parks and on its streets, banning unhoused people from “using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements”. The city’s policies call for $295 fines and criminal prosecution punishable by up to 30 days in jail after multiple offenses.

In City of Grants Pass v Johnson, the court ruled 6-3 that it is not “cruel and unusual punishment” under the eighth amendment to ban unhoused people from camping outside when they have nowhere else to go. The decision stands to broadly affect how American cities approach homelessness and could lead to more jurisdictions passing laws to ticket, fine and jail people for living outside, marking a significant erosion of unhoused people’s rights.

***

Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Minority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Minority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Minority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Majority

• Sotomayor – Majority

In Moyle v United States, the justices dismissed a case over whether emergency room doctors can perform abortions to save a woman’s health, returning the case to a lower court.

Idaho had sought to have abortion exempted from the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (Emtala), which requires hospitals that receive federal dollars to stabilize the health of patients who show up at their emergency rooms with medical emergencies. Although many states allow doctors to perform an emergency abortion when a woman’s life or health is at risk, in effect mirroring Emtala, Idaho only allowed doctors to intervene when a woman was on the brink of death, a much higher bar for intervention. The Biden administration sued Idaho to enforce the law.

***

Court blocks EPA attempt to reduce pollution that drifts across states

^{Decided 5-4}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Minority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court put a hold on an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce harmful air pollution that drifts across state lines. The ruling in Ohio v Environmental Protection Agency sided with three states – Ohio, West Virginia and Indiana – and industry allies seeking to derail so-called “good neighbor” regulations, which prevent pollution from billowing into neighboring states.

The program, first drawn up by the EPA in 2015, is designed to prevent “upwind” states from causing air pollution that flows to “downwind” neighbors. The primary target of the regulation is ground-level ozone, which forms smog that causes an array of health problems. The case will continue to play out in lower courts.

***

Decision blocks Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement that would shield Sacklers from lawsuits

^{Decided 5-4}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Minority

• Roberts – Minority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

In Harrington v Purdue Pharma, the court rejected painkiller maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement plan that included an extraordinary measure to protect its Sackler family owners from further liability over the American opioid epidemic, in exchange for providing funds for compensation and rehabilitation treatment.

The deal was constructed to allow Purdue, the Connecticut company behind the prescription opioid OxyContin, to restructure and also shield the relevant Sackler billionaires without them having to declare personal bankruptcy. The family agreed to contribute $6bn to the settlement from the vast fortune they made from OxyContin and give up ownership.

The company wanted to use the bankruptcy agreement to resolve thousands of lawsuits, many filed by state and local governments across the US, alleging that Purdue Pharma fueled a crisis that ultimately killed half a million Americans by claiming its flagship drug was non-addictive while incentivizing massive over-prescribing.

***

SEC’s in-house rulings violate US constitution

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a major tool in fighting securities fraud in a decision that could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies.

The justices ruled in a 6-3 vote in Securities and Exchange Comission v Jarkesy that people accused of fraud by the SEC, which regulates securities markets, have the right to a jury trial in federal court. The in-house proceedings the SEC has used in some civil fraud complaints violate the constitution, the court said.

***

Government is allowed to request removal of misinformation on social media

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Minority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Minority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Minority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Majority

• Sotomayor – Majority

The court struck down a lower court ruling in the case of Murthy v Missouri, in a decision that did not find that the government’s communications with social media platforms about Covid-19 misinformation violated the first amendment. The decision permits the government to call on tech companies to remove falsehoods, a key concern as misinformation spreads around this year’s presidential election.

The court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the Biden administration, with conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. Although many of the arguments in the case centered on how governments and platforms interact with free speech online, the ruling focused more on procedural issues and a lack of legal grounds to bring the case.

***

Ban on domestic abusers possessing guns is found to be constitutional

^{Decided 8-1}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Minority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Majority

• Sotomayor – Majority

The court upheld a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. The ruling in United States v Rahimi was supported by eight justices, with Clarence Thomas dissenting. It leaves in place legal protections against a major source of gun violence in America.

Writing the opinion, the chief justice, John Roberts, said that individuals can be temporarily disarmed if they pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” without violating the second amendment to the constitution that allows the right to bear arms.

***

Court rules against Washington couple in foreign investment taxation case

^{Decided 7-2}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Minority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Minority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Majority

• Sotomayor – Majority

The court ruled against a Washington couple who argued they were unconstitutionally taxed $15,000 for their investment in a foreign company – in a case some have argued was a backdoor attempt to ban future wealth taxes.

The case, Moore v United States, put into question what assets are considered taxable income. The couple argued the tax was unconstitutional because they didn’t receive any cash from the investment, but the court ultimately agreed with the government that the investment was a form of income.

***

Federal ban on ‘bump stock’ devices for guns struck down

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court struck down a federal ban on “bump stocks”, the devices that can vamp up semiautomatic firearms to discharge ammunition almost as rapidly as machine guns and that have been behind some of the most devastating mass shootings in recent history.

The ruling, in Garland v Cargill, was 6-3, with the court’s liberal justices dissenting from the conservative majority’s decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a semiautomatic firearm equipped with a bump stock did not meet the definition of a machine gun; machine guns are subject to stricter regulations.

***

Court upholds access to abortion pill mifepristone

^{Decided 9-0}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Majority

• Kagan – Majority

• Sotomayor – Majority

The availability of a common abortion pill will remain unchanged, the court ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision, handing a major victory to abortion-rights supporters who feared that the court that overturned Roe v Wade just two years ago would further hack away at access to the procedure.

The case, FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, dealt with the FDA’s ability to regulate mifepristone, one of two drugs typically used in medication abortions, which now make up more than 60% of all US abortions and have become a major target of anti-abortion activists. A coalition of abortion opponents had tried to persuade the supreme court to roll back a series of moves by the FDA to expand access to the drug, such as allowing abortion providers to mail mifepristone to patients.

***

South Carolina doesn’t need to redraw congressional map to consider Black voters

^{Decided 6-3}

Conservative bloc

• Alito – Majority

• Barrett – Majority

• Gorsuch – Majority

• Kavanaugh – Majority

• Roberts – Majority

• Thomas – Majority

Liberal bloc

• Jackson – Minority

• Kagan – Minority

• Sotomayor – Minority

The court ruled that South Carolina Republicans do not need to redraw their congressional map, deciding that a lower court had not properly evaluated the evidence when it ruled that the lawmakers had discriminated against Black voters.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration. The ruling, in Alexander v South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, is a major win for Republicans, who hold a slim margin in the US House with six of South Carolina’s seven congressional seats. It also could give lawmakers more leeway to discriminate in redistricting and use partisanship as a proxy for race. That could be enormously powerful in the US south, where voting is often racially polarized.