The Supreme Court is back in session.
In the 2023-2024 term, Supreme Court justices will hear cases involving the Second Amendment, abortion rights, racial gerrymandering, free speech online, union battles, and Donald Trump’s eligiblity for office.
Now more than ever, US voters are keeping a close eye on the highest court in the land after two contentious years produced a series of negatively viewed decisions.
Going into the new term, US voters can expect rulings to align more conservatively just as they have the last two years because the court’s majority leans that way.
Therse are the cases to watch.
Eligibility for the presidency:Donald Trump v Norma Anderson et al
Justices will consider Donald Trump’s appeal of a Colorado court decision that found him constitutionally ineligible for the presidency for his actions surrounding the attack on the US Capitol on January 6.
The Supreme Court will review the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Mr Trump is ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office.
Oral arguments are scheduled for February 8.
Racial gerrymandering: Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Justices are being asked to uphold or reverse a unanimous three-judge ruling that found South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional.
The NAACP argues that state lawmakers discriminated against Black voters by moving hundreds of thousands of voters out of one of the state’s seven congressional districts, while lowering the Black voting population in all but one of them.
A federal court already found that the state’s First Congressional District – currently represented by Republican US Rep Nancy Mace – violated the Constitution by using race as a determining factor when drawing its boundaries.
Oral arguments took place on October 11.
Demonstrators attend a rally outside of the US Supreme Court on 11 October.— (Getty Images for Rooted Logistic)
Abortion rights: FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
In its first abortion case since overturning Roe v Wade last year, the court is considering whether to uphold a ruling that severely restricts access to the commonly used abortion drug mifepristone.
A group of physicians represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, which took on the case that ultimately overturned Roe, is asking to overturn the government’s approval of the drug.
Should the court uphold a lower court’s ruling, access to reproductive healthcare would once again be severely restricted across the US by the nation’s highest court. Mifepristone, which has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2000, is used in the medication that accounts for more than half of abortions in the US.
A date for oral arguments has not yet been scheduled.
Mifepristone is approved for use for medication abortion, the most common form of abortion care in the US.— (REUTERS)
Second Amendment: United States v Rahimi
This case questions whether individuals with domestic violence restraining orders against them can possess a firearm under the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments took place on November 7.
A ruling in favour of Rahimi could allow people with a history of domestic violence to legally obtain a firearm, which could have profound impacts on the ways courts and law enforcement protect abuse survivors and combat the gun violence epidemic.
Activists hold up signs outside U.S. Supreme Court during a gun-control rally on November 7, 2023 in Washington, DC.— (Getty Images)
Second Amendment: Brown v United States and Jackson v United States
The court is being asked to clarify language in the Armed Career Criminal Act that determines an individual is mandatorily sentenced to 15 years in prison minimum if they have three prior “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses” in two consolidated cases.
In both cases, the petitioners argue they should not have received longer sentencing because their prior offences had different meanings due to state or federal law changes.
Oral arguments took place on November 27.
A ruling in the case could redefine what a “serious drug offense” means thus allowing people with prior drug convictions to obtain a firearm – something President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is currently facing.
Labour rights:Starbucks v Kathleen McKinney
A high-profile union battle at the world’s largest coffee retailer will head to the nation’s highest court, where justices will review a lower court decision that found Starbucks illegally chilled a union campaign in Memphis after firing seven workers in 2022. A federal labour agency determined they were fired for supporting a union.
The justices will review the process for court injunctions that can keep workers employees during litigation involving unfair labour practices.
Regulatory: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v Community Financial Services Association of America
This case is asking justices to determine if the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is currently funded by the Federal Reserve System is a violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution which says money cannot be drawn from the Treasury without congressional approval.
Since its formation in 2011, the CFPB has been funded by the Federal Reserve System to implement and enforce federal consumer financial law and ensure markets are fair, transparent and competitive. The agency has jurisdiction over banks, credit unions, debt collectors and more.
Oral arguments took place on October 3.
Though regulatory cases like this are typically boring and hard to understand, a ruling against CFPB could have massive implications by opening a door for others to challenge the funding of Medicare, Social Security and many more.
The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2023— (AFP via Getty Images)
Administrative: Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo
The question being presented to the justices is whether the Court should reverse the Chevron Doctrine – a document that arose from the landmark case Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council which requires courts to defer to the expert agency when making decisions in ambiguous situations.
The details of this case have to do with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implementing a new rule that requires fishing companies to pay for third-party observers aboard specific boats.
A decision that reverses the Chevron doctrine would alter federal agencies (like the FDA) by allowing courts to bypass experts’ opinions when making decisions.
Oral arguments are set to take place on January 17.
Administrative: Securities and Exchange Commission v Jarkesy
In this case, the court is being asked to clarify a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that allows the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to make judgments and seek civil penalties it’s in in-house court. The plaintiffs claim using the in-house system violates the Seventh Amendment which entitles a person to a jury during a civil trial.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a person accused of violating securities fraud would be subject to administrative law judges (ALJ) within the SEC but several flaws have been found in this system.
Like CFBP v Community Financial Services, this case has the potential to open a door to how other agencies use the administration law process – or if they even can.
Oral arguments occurred on November 29.
Homelessness: Grants Pass, Oregon v Gloria Johnson et al
Justices will decide whether local governments can legally ban people experiencing homelessness from camping on public property that opponents argue violates constitutional protections against “cruel and unusual punishment”.
The court will hear an appeal of an historic decision from a San Francisco-based federal appeals court that determined such ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, are prohibited under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution.
That ruling applied to all nine states in its jurisdiction, including California, where roughly 30 per cent of the nation’s homeless population resides.
A date for oral arguments has not yet been scheduled.
First Amendment: Moody v NetChoice LLC and NetChoice LLC v Paxton
In these consolidated cases, the Court is being asked to determine if laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit social media platforms from removing speech is a violation of the First Amendment.
In Moody v NetChoice, the Florida law in question was passed in May 2021 and fines social media platforms for banning political candidates for more than 60 days or “journalistic enterprises” that have over 100k monthly users or 50k subscribers.
In NetChoice v Paxton, the Texas law in question forbade social media companies with 50 million users from removing or hiding content based on viewpoints among other governing rules.
A decision that upholds the laws in Florida and Texas could have substantial impacts on the use of social media opening the door for states to enact their own content moderation laws. It could prove particularly dicey when it comes to freedom of the press online.
Oral arguments have not been set yet.
First Amendment: Murthy v Missouri
The Court will need to decide if the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when asking social media companies to monitor speech online by taking down posts that circulate misinformation.
Respondents claim that the Biden administration actually censored conservative speech when they removed posts containing Covid-19, election integrity and other misinformation.
Oral arguments have not been scheduled yet.
People participate in a rally and march against COVID-19 mandates on September 13, 2021 in New York City. President Joe Biden has supported and ordered mandates for federal workers— (Getty Images)
First Amendment: Lindke v Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier
In these consolidated First Amendment rights cases, the court is being asked to define whether the speech a public official uses on social media to communicate job-related matters is considered state action and if blocking people violates the First Amendment.
In both cases, the petitioners (who are public officials in their respective towns) were sued by residents for blocking them or removing their comments from their Facebook or Twitter pages.
The ruling in this case will set general rules as to how public officials may use social media when communicating about their jobs. If the court rules in favour of the respondents, government and public officials will likely have to completely separate official social media accounts from personal accounts.
Oral arguments occurred on October 31.
First Amendment: National Rifle Association v Vullo
The case is asking if the First Amendment allows for a government official to threaten regulated entities if they conduct business with a subjectively controversial speaker.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is arguing that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the NY Department of Financial Services (DFS), threatened insurers who conducted business with the NRA in a “guidance” note sent in 2018. The “guidance” seemingly alluded to a recent $13m penalty the DFS brought against insurers who participated in a gun-insurer program that provided coverage to people who shoot others – even with criminal intent.
On the surface, the case has to do with speech but it also has implications for the Second Amendment – specifically by upending a law in New York that prevents insurers from selling products that provide protections to people who shoot other people.
Oral arguments have not been set yet.
A person wears an NRA hat in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2022.— (AFP via Getty Images)
Criminal law: Pulsifer v United States
In this criminal law case, the court is being asked to specify what the word “and” means in a sentencing statute provision of the First Step Act.
The provision allows individuals with nonviolent drug offenses to qualify for shorter sentencing so long as they do not have a lengthy criminal history, prior serious offense and prior violent offense. However, the language makes it unclear if a defendant qualifies for a shorter sentencing so long as they do not meet all three or if they are no longer qualified if they meet any single one.
Though the specificity of the word seems arbitrary it will determine if thousands of defendants in federal person could benefit from shorter sentences.
The court heard arguments on October 2.
Trademark infringement: Vidal v Elster
Justices are being asked to decide if refusing to register a mark that criticises a government official or public figure violates the First Amendment.
The case has to do with Steve Elster’s attempt to register “TRUMP TOO SMALL” so he could sell it on t-shirts. It was rejected because US Patent and Trademark Office claimed he needed the written consent of Donald Trump since it used his last name.
Justices heard arguments on November 1.
A ruling in this case will determine if political speech about a public figure or government official can be trademarked. A decision in favour of Mr Elster would mean people in public official positions could lose some rights to name protections.
Bankruptcy code law: Harrington v Purdue Pharma
The Court is being asked to determine whether bankruptcy law allows for people who aren’t bankrupt to be protected by liability releases.
It stems from the settlement between Purdue Pharma and victims who overdosed due to the company’s opioid drug, OxyContin. Purdue Pharma claimed bankruptcy – but the Sackler family, who owns Purdue Pharma, did not. In the bankruptcy deal, the company agreed to pay victims in exchange for a liability release that shields the family from future civil lawsuits.
A ruling in the case can be consequential for wealthy individuals or companies who are no strangers to using bankruptcy claims to get out of liability suits.
Justices heard oral arguments on December 4.
A campaigner holds a pill container whilst outside the US Supreme Court, Washington, DC, USA, 04 December 2023. The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a bankruptcy case against Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin— (EPA)
Disability rights: Acheson Hotels LLC v Laufer
In this disability rights case, the court was asked to determine if an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) “tester” can challenge a hotel’s failure to provide accessibility information on its website.
Deborah Laufer, a self-proclaimed ADA “tester”, has brought hundreds of lawsuits against small hotels around the US for failing to include accessibility information online – despite not intending to visit many of the hotels.
Acheson Hotels LLC claims that Ms Laufer doesn’t have the right to bring a lawsuit forward because she wasn’t planning on visiting the hotel.
On December 5, justices dismissed the case as moot.
