Join the Inside Washington email list to receive daily, unique coverage and analysis of the United States delivered directly to your email.
Receive our complimentary Inside Washington newsletter via email!
The Supreme Court has resumed its session.
During the term of 2023-2024, the Supreme Court will review legal cases pertaining to the Second Amendment, abortion rights, racial gerrymandering, online free speech, and the eligibility of Donald Trump to hold office.
Currently, American voters are paying extra attention to the supreme court due to the past two controversial years that resulted in a number of unfavorably perceived judgements.
As the new term begins, American voters can anticipate a more conservative stance in rulings, similar to the past two years due to the majority leanings of the court.
Here are the situations to monitor.
Qualifications for the Office of the President: Donald Trump versus Norma Anderson and others.
The Supreme Court will review Mr. Trump’s challenge to a ruling by a Colorado court that deemed him unfit for the presidency based on his involvement in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol.
The state utilized Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which forbids individuals who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have participated in insurrection or rebellion, from holding a public office.
If the court determines that Mr. Trump is not qualified, he would be unable to campaign for the presidency, even though he is currently the leading Republican candidate.
Racial gerrymandering: Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
The justices are being tasked with either affirming or overturning a previous ruling by a lower court that determined South Carolina’s First Congressional District was in violation of the Constitution for unfairly targeting Black voters by relocating a large portion of their voting population to different districts.
The decision made by the Supreme Court will either broaden or restrict voting privileges.
The issue of abortion rights: FDA versus Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories versus Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
The court is set to review a lower court’s decision that greatly limits the availability of the widely used abortion medication, mifepristone, in its first abortion-related case since overturning Roe v Wade last year.
A coalition of doctors, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, is petitioning the court to reverse the government’s endorsement of the medication, Mifepristone. This drug has been sanctioned by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2000 and is a key component in over half of all abortions performed in the United States.
If the higher court agrees with the decision of the lower court, access to reproductive healthcare in the United States will once again be greatly restricted by the highest court in the country.
The Second Amendment in the case of United States v Rahimi.
This situation raises concerns about the ability of individuals with restraining orders for domestic violence to own a firearm in accordance with the Second Amendment.
A decision in support of Rahimi could potentially grant individuals with a record of domestic violence the ability to lawfully acquire a gun. This could significantly affect how courts and law enforcement agencies safeguard domestic abuse victims and address the issue of gun violence.
The dispute between Starbucks and Kathleen McKinney over labor rights.
A well-known dispute between a union and the leading coffee company in the world will be brought to the highest court in the country. The court will review a ruling made by a lower court, which determined that Starbucks violated labor laws by hindering a union’s efforts in Memphis, TN. This occurred after the company fired seven employees in 2022.
The federal labor agency concluded that they were terminated due to their support of a union.
The judges will examine the procedure for court orders that may retain employees’ jobs during legal proceedings regarding unjust labor practices.
Revised: Legal Case: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau vs. Community Financial Services Association of America.
This case is questioning whether the current funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the use of Treasury funds without congressional approval.
A decision against the CFPB could have significant consequences for the watchdog agency’s capacity to oversee and enforce financial laws.
The case of Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo in the administrative court.
The Court will determine whether or not to overturn the Chevron deference, a legal principle established in the notable case Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council. This principle dictates that courts must defer to the expertise of agencies when interpreting and enforcing laws that are unclear.
A change in the Chevron deference would disrupt the regulation of health care, energy, pollution, and other areas by granting courts the authority to interpret and enforce laws.
The case of Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Jarkesy, in an administrative matter.
The court is seeking to decide whether individuals accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have the right to a jury trial instead of being heard in the agency’s in-house court, known as an administrative law judge (ALJ).
Over 30 administrative agencies utilize ALJs. A ruling that restricts their power to impose penalties without a jury could result in significant disruptions.
Unable to reword.
The justices will determine if it is legally permissible for local governments to prohibit individuals who are homeless from camping on public property. Critics argue that this goes against constitutional rights that protect against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The First Amendment was at the center of two cases, Moody v NetChoice LLC and NetChoice LLC v Paxton.
The court is being tasked with deciding whether laws in Florida and Texas that forbid social media platforms from censoring speech are a violation of the First Amendment.
A ruling in favor of the existing laws could grant states the ability to oversee content moderation on social media. This could pose a challenge in regards to protecting freedom of the press on the internet.
The initial amendment, which was the subject of the court case Murthy v Missouri, dealt with freedom of speech and expression.
The court will determine if the actions of the Biden administration, which involved requesting social media platforms to remove posts containing Covid-19 misinformation, are in violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech on the internet.
No dates have been set for oral arguments.
The First Amendment was upheld in the cases of Lindke v Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier.
These combined cases seek to clarify whether the posts made by a public official on social media to discuss job-related issues are considered as state action and if blocking individuals constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.
The verdict in this instance will establish broad guidelines for how government employees can utilize social media when discussing their duties.
The oral arguments took place on October 31st.
The first amendment case between the National Rifle Association and Vullo.
The issue at hand is whether or not a government official has the right to intimidate regulated organizations if they engage in business with a speaker who is deemed controversial based on personal opinions.
The NRA claims that the ex-superintendent of the NY DFS used a “guidance” note sent in 2018 to intimidate insurers who had partnerships with the NRA.
The decision in this lawsuit also has consequences for the Second Amendment, particularly by overturning a New York law that prohibits insurance companies from offering coverage to individuals who harm others.
Pulsifer v United States is a legal case pertaining to criminal law.
This legal case involves a request to the court to clarify a poorly written section of the First Step Act that dictates the duration of a defendant’s sentencing.
The way in which the text is phrased will determine whether numerous individuals serving time in federal prison could receive reduced sentences.
Violation of trademark: Vidal versus Elster
Judges are being tasked with determining whether or not denying the registration of a mark that critiques a government official or public figure is a violation of the First Amendment.
This case pertains to Steve Elster’s effort to officially register the phrase “TRUMP TOO SMALL”.
This case’s verdict will dictate whether or not political expression regarding a public figure or government official can be legally protected as a trademark. If Mr. Elster prevails, individuals in public office may face limitations on their rights to safeguard their names.
Harrington v Purdue Pharma: Legal Case on Bankruptcy
The judges are being tasked with deciding whether individuals who are not bankrupt can still receive protection under bankruptcy laws through liability releases.
This originates from the agreement between Purdue Pharma and individuals who suffered from overdose as a result of the company’s opioid medication, OxyContin.
The outcome of the trial could have a significant impact on affluent individuals or businesses who are familiar with utilizing bankruptcy filings as a means to avoid lawsuits.