The U.S. Supreme Court had another monumental term. Some cases involved novel issues for the court, such as the one granting the President immunity from almost all criminal charges. Other rulings, such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturned decades of precedent. While some decisions were made on ideological lines, several notable rulings were unanimous or did not break according to conservative or liberal factions.
Below, FindLaw summarizes the most notable decisions for the 2023-2024 term.
Executive Power, Elections, and Immunity
A number of high-profile cases involved executive power. On one hand, the Supreme Court gave the executive branch significantly more power by granting broad immunity from criminal prosecutions. At the same time, they dialed back some executive power by reducing the authority of federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes. Both decisions, in turn, increased the power of the judicial branch.
Presidential Immunity
In perhaps the most profound decision this term, the Justices gave broad criminal immunity to U.S. presidents in Trump v. United States.
According to the 6-3 majority, a president has absolute immunity for "core" functions of the presidency, such as those laid out by the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Court ruled that there should be a strong presumption of immunity given to presidents for all "official" actions, which includes all actions on the "outer perimeter" of the presidency.
Unofficial actions do not enjoy immunity. However, the Court did not define or give concrete examples of what these constitute. Trump v. United States contained some of the most strongly-worded dissents in recent SCOTUS history and has been possibly the most controversial decision since the case that overturned the right to abortion two years ago.
Ending Chevron
The Supreme Court rolled back a key chunk of executive power with its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case effectively ended the Chevron doctrine, which for 40 years had courts deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Critics of Chevron deference had been arguing for a while that it undermined the separation of powers by granting excessive authority to executive agencies.
The case in Loper Bright involved a fishing company that challenged a federal agency's requirement to pay for "fish auditors" on their boats under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act. That law was unclear as to who was responsible for paying.
SCOTUS ruled that deferring to a federal agency's interpretation of how to read that law violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates independent judicial judgment. The ruling marks a significant shift in the judicial approach to statutory interpretation, emphasizing courts' roles over agencies.
Social Media Regulation
There were several cases involving social media regulation:
- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that government officials can sometimes be sued under the First Amendment for blocking critics on social media. The critical issue is whether that official acted as part of their government role or simply stated something personal.
- The case of Moody v. NetChoice dealt with two laws passed in Florida and Texas that prohibited social media companies from censoring posts based on viewpoint. The unanimous decision by SCOTUS sent the question of whether these laws were constitutional back to lower courts. According to Justice Kagan, the Court has repeatedly held that laws forcing editorial choices on news media (including on digital platforms) are typically protected by the First Amendment. District courts must now review the cases under SCOTUS's guidance, keeping in mind that to win a facial First Amendment challenge, a "substantial number" of the law’s applications must be unconstitutional, which is to be decided "in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.”
- Finally, Murthy v. Missouri considered whether the Biden Administration could communicate with social media companies about limiting misinformation. But, the 6-3 SCOTUS majority held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The Court was not divided along ideological lines in the decision. It should also be noted that this procedural ruling does not prohibit further legal challenges.
States Can't Kick Presidential Candidates Off of Ballots
SCOTUS unanimously held that states cannot kick a candidate off of a federal primary ballot. This came as a response to the Colorado State Supreme Court deciding that Trump was constitutionally prohibited from running for the office of the presidency. The SCOTUS majority went further by declaring that only Congress can remove candidates from federal ballots. However, four justices wrote that while Colorado did not have the power to take Trump off the ballot, they would not specifically give that power to Congress.
Abortion
Challenges to abortion laws continue. This term, the Supreme Court only decided abortion-related cases on procedural grounds. Meanwhile, changing state laws and federal court challenges continue to make this area of the law varied and uncertain.
Abortion Pill Remains Legal
SCOTUS unanimously ruled to keep access to the abortion drug mifepristone legal by knocking out the plaintiffs' case due to lack of standing. The FDA initially approved mifepristone in 2000 with strict regulations, which were relaxed in 2016 and 2021. Pro-life groups opposed these changes and filed a lawsuit, which was initially supported by a Texas judge and partially by the Fifth Circuit. However, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate concrete injury, a requirement for standing. The ruling preserves FDA regulations on mifepristone without addressing broader legal issues, leaving future challenges possible but uncertain.
Idaho Emergency Abortions Okay for Now
In another abortion case involving procedural issues, the Supreme Court ended an injunction that prohibited Idaho doctors from terminating a pregnancy to avoid serious health problems for pregnant women. SCOTUS lifted its own emergency stay, meaning that Idaho women are now allowed emergency abortions while the case gets litigated in lower courts. The Court did not address the merits of the case, however, so the ultimate legal question is yet to be decided.
Gun Control and the Second Amendment
Challenges to gun regulations abound in federal court. After dodging the question for most of its history, the Supreme Court has issued several opinions outlining Second Amendment protections since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
Gun Restrictions for Domestic Abusers Constitutional
In the 8-1 decision of United States v Rahimi, SCOTUS upheld a federal law prohibiting people under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing guns. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the historical context of gun laws, noting that restricting firearm access to those who pose a threat to others is constitutional and has been throughout U.S. history. This decision is an important one for domestic violence victims who rely on such laws for protection, and it underscores the evolving landscape of gun laws. While recent cases have expanded gun rights, Rahimi shows that not all firearm restrictions will be overturned.
Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns
Did the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (ATF) exceed its authority by declaring that a semiautomatic with a bump stock (a device that allows a more rapid rate of fire) is considered a "machine gun" under federal law?
According to a 6-3 majority, yes. Bump stocks did not meet the definition of machine guns under federal law. This was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a case decided on Second Amendment grounds. This was one of the cases decided along ideological lines this term.
Other Notable Cases
EPA Blocked
An Environmental Protection Agency program from 2015 that attempted to protect "downwind" states from pollution from nearby states was put on hold as the lower court continues to oversee the case. The SCOTUS decision was a narrow 5-4 majority, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal justices in dissent.
The majority held that the EPA could not implement its "Good Neighbor" program while the case is ongoing. This was one of the few cases this term to come through the Supreme Court's "shadow docket", or the emergency appeals option. The other notable case plucked from the shadow docket was the Idaho abortion case.
Easier to File a Discrimination Claim
SCOTUS made it easier to bring workplace discrimination lawsuits in a case involving a St. Louis police officer who claimed she was transferred to an undesirable role because of her gender. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the unanimous court, held that plaintiffs do not need to show some significant harm (such as a pay cut) to claim discrimination under Title VII. The Court took up the case in part because of a split among federal courts of appeal on the issue.
Takeaways
The Supreme Court has been increasingly seen as partisan. The 2024 term is unlikely to alter that perception, particularly given the high-profile cases involving the upcoming presidential election. However, it should be noted that several important decisions did not fall along ideological lines. On the other hand, a number of the unanimous (and therefore effectively nonpartisan) cases were decided on procedural grounds rather than addressing any of the legal arguments.
Much more could be written on this term, and several important cases have been excluded from this list — such as the Court's ruling on the ability to arrest homeless people. More noteworthy cases from SCOTUS's last term are found in the Related Resources section below. However, this sampling of cases reflects a busy term in which the Supreme Court weighed in on several controversial national issues — from gun rights to abortion to executive power and elections.
It's a good thing we can all take a breath before the 2024-2025 term starts.
Related Resources
- SCOTUS Expands Right to Sue Police Who Bring Baseless Charges (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- SCOTUS Upholds CFPB's Funding in Controversial Ruling (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- SCOTUS Settles a Circuit Split in Copyright Damages Over Flo Rida Music Sample Case
