Former President Donald Trump had a significant impact on the Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term. As the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024, he brought two cases before the justices and was successful in both. Additionally, he could benefit from a decision in a third case involving a defendant charged in the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol.
Trump’s influence extended beyond his personal cases.
The three justices he nominated during his presidency have solidified a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. This majority has not only embraced a broad view of presidential immunity but also pushed the court further to the right on various issues, most notably reducing the power of federal agencies, a goal long sought by conservative lawyers and scholars.The Supreme Court’s July 1 decision that former presidents cannot face criminal liability for their official acts was a major victory for Trump.
His trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results had been scheduled for March 4, 2024. However, the court’s decision to hear his appeal and the subsequent oral arguments and ruling have indefinitely postponed the trial, increasing the likelihood that it will not occur before the November elections.The 6-3 ruling, with an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts argued that allowing criminal charges against a former president might affect his decision-making while in office.
He emphasized that the justices were crafting a forward-looking opinion to establish a rule for the ages, not just to address Trump’s situation. However, the court’s liberal justices strongly dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the majority’s decision would expansively protect the president from the law in every use of official power. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the ruling’s practical consequences as a severe threat to democratic self-governance and the normal operations of government.Jackson also noted that with the court’s decision, the power to decide when the president can be held accountable has been transferred from the political branches to the judiciary itself.
In a significant legal victory, Trump successfully challenged a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that could have led to his removal from the state’s ballot due to his alleged involvement in the January 6th attacks.
The justices unanimously decided that Colorado had no authority to disqualify Trump, highlighting the potential for inconsistent eligibility across states based on the same conduct.A five-justice majority further clarified that only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which Colorado had invoked in its attempt to disqualify Trump. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for herself and the court’s three liberal justices, concurred that Trump should not be removed from the ballot but criticized the court for expanding on the enforcement of Section 3. Barrett’s opinion underscored the importance of not escalating political tensions during a presidential election season, advocating for a more measured judicial approach.
The court’s decision in the case of Fischer v. United States could complicate the prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., by narrowing the scope of a federal criminal statute under which many January 6th defendants, including Trump, were charged. The court, with a 6-3 vote, sent the case back to lower courts, requiring prosecutors to demonstrate that a defendant tampered with physical evidence related to an official proceeding. Beyond the high-profile Trump cases, the court’s rulings on the power of federal administrative agencies may have far-reaching implications. The court recently overturned its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which had required federal courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that courts must apply their own judgment to legal questions regarding administrative agencies.The recent court rulings have significant implications for the U.S. legal system, particularly regarding the doctrine of Chevron deference. Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, argued that overturning Chevron deference would cause a massive shock to the system, as it would grant federal courts exclusive power over open issues involving regulatory law, despite federal agencies’ technical and scientific expertise.
On the same day, the court ruled in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, stating that the SEC cannot impose fines in securities-fraud cases without a jury through in-house proceedings. This decision is expected to impact numerous federal administrative agencies that employ similar processes. In Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court put a hold on the EPA’s Good Neighbor Provision, which aimed to reduce interstate air pollution. The court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the EPA had not adequately justified the continued application of emissions-control measures to states that did not remain in the plan. The ruling in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve has gained importance following the Chevron doctrine’s overturning. The court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for challenging federal agency actions begins when the plaintiff is injured, regardless of when the action occurred. Conservatives have also achieved victories in other legal areas, including voting rights and homelessness, indicating a broader impact of these rulings on various aspects of law.In the case of Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, a divided court overturned a federal district court’s ruling that identified a South Carolina congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This decision complicates future challenges to redistricting plans on racial grounds. The state’s Republican-controlled legislature contended that the map drawn post-2020 census was based on party politics, not race. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that if courts could determine bad faith in map drafting due to a correlation between race and party affiliation, litigants might evade federal court restrictions on partisan gerrymandering claims by framing them as racial gerrymandering.
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, criticizing the court’s opinion for creating rules that disadvantage suits aimed at remedying race-based redistricting. She suggested the ruling encourages legislators to rely on race in redistricting. In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the court upheld Oregon city ordinances prohibiting the homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard for protection while sleeping on public property. The court reasoned that these ordinances apply to everyone and do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Gorsuch emphasized that federal judges should not dictate national homelessness policy, suggesting it is a task for the democratic process. Dissenting, Justice Sotomayor argued that the ordinances criminalize homelessness, violating the Eighth Amendment. She acknowledged the significant issues homelessness poses, especially in the West, but insisted that current law allows local authorities to address related problems like littering, drug use, and harassment. During the 2023-24 term, the court delayed decisions on significant disputes or rejected rulings by the ultraconservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The justices declined to weigh in on the merits of two cases concerning abortion access, ruling that challengers to the FDA’s expansion of mifepristone access lacked legal standing to sue.The Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding the accessibility of mifepristone, a drug used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States. The justices unanimously reversed a decision by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which had previously rolled back FDA’s expansion of access to the drug in 2016 and 2021.
The FDA initially approved mifepristone in 2000, and later made several changes to its usage conditions, including allowing it to be used later in pregnancy, prescribed by non-physician healthcare providers, and without requiring an in-person visit.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case may not be concluded as it returns to lower courts. Three states with Republican attorneys general—Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas—have joined the dispute and could potentially push the case forward.
On June 27, the justices dismissed two cases involving the Biden administration’s challenge to Idaho’s strict abortion ban, which bars abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Biden administration argues that this law is superseded by a federal law requiring hospitals receiving Medicare to provide necessary stabilizing treatment, including abortions, in emergency medical conditions.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter has allowed emergency abortions to proceed, at least temporarily. However, the dispute could return to the Supreme Court, and a potential Trump presidency in November could reverse the Biden administration’s stance on EMTALA.
Two additional cases indicated that even the conservative Roberts court found the 5th Circuit’s actions excessive. In United States v. Rahimi, the court upheld a federal law preventing individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, aligning with historical gun regulation traditions.
In mid-May, the justices also rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the funding structure for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The Supreme Court has made a significant decision regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The 5th Circuit had previously ruled that the agency’s funding, which is derived from the Federal Reserve’s profits rather than the standard appropriations process, was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a seven-justice majority, clarified that the CFPB’s funding scheme aligns with the definition of a congressional appropriation. Congress has specified both the source—the Federal Reserve—and the usage of the CFPB’s funding.
Ethical questions surrounding the justices have persisted. Despite the adoption of a code of conduct in November, ethical concerns resurfaced in the spring when the New York Times reported an upside-down American flag, associated with the Stop the Steal movement, flying outside Justice Alito’s Virginia home following the Jan.
6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attacks. It was also revealed that the Alitos had flown an Appeal to Heaven flag, linked to both the Stop the Steal movement and Christian nationalism, as late as summer 2023.Justice Alito declined requests from Democratic lawmakers to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 attacks. He stated that his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had flown the upside-down American flag due to a neighborhood dispute, which occurred after the flag was displayed.
Alito asserted that neither he nor his wife was aware of any connection between the Appeal to Heaven flag and the Stop the Steal movement.Citing the justices’ code of conduct, Alito deemed it his duty to continue participating in the Trump immunity and Jan. 6 cases. He wrote, ‘A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal.
‘ The code of conduct generally leaves decisions about recusals to the individual justices, with no enforcement mechanism in place.This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in Merits Cases, What’s Happening Now
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Roberts court hands major wins to Trump, conservative movement in 2023-24 term, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 3, 2024, 12:00 AM)
