Presidential immunity: Trump v. United States (2024) In July, Justice Roberts ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office; there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly.

Climate change: 

Sackett v. EPA (2023), West Virginia v. EPA (2022) Two recent Supreme Court decisions took power away from the EPA in its attempts to provide clean water and clean air. In Sackett, Justice Alito decided that the Clean Water Act extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right, so that they are indistinguishable from those waters. In the West Virginia case, Justice Roberts decided that Congress did not grant the EPA the authority (under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act) to devise emissions caps based on the generation-shifting approach that the EPA took in the Clean Power Plan.

But in a temporary victory for the EPA and climate activists, the Supreme Court ruled on October 15th to allow the agency to move forward with provisional plans to limit carbon emissions by coal- and gas-fired plants. The a decision supports a Biden administration goal of curbing such pollution by 2050. The EPA seeks to require the plans to capture up to 99% of their emissions by 2032. Over two dozens states had challenged the EPA regulation that is now moving forward in the lower courts; the SCOTUS decision was made in response to an emergency application by the EPA.

Gender/Trans issues: 

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020): This landmark decision ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status, BUT it severely restricted the circumstances under which these protections apply. America First Legal filed a similar case, Texas et al. v. U.S., in April 2024 (ongoing).

Voter Rights:

Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024): Here, Justice Alito ruled that “partisan” gerrymandering is traditional, and therefore not the same as “racial” gerrymandering, and could thus stand. (Gerrymandering refers to the manipulation of the boundaries of voting districts to ensure a majority for one party.)

College protests/free speech: 

Recent pro-Palestinian / pro-ceasefire in Gaza protests on college campuses have ignited a series of lawsuits about how universities moved to quell free speech. These have not yet been litigated, but similar cases have, linked to earlier Black Lives Matter protests. In Doe v. Mckesson (2024), a police officer sued the leader of a BLM protest, charging that his negligence had caused the officer to be injured. The district court rejected the claim. The Fifth Circuit federal appeals court, however, reversed that decision, and held that Mckesson could be sued for “negligent protest.” The case was sent to the Supreme Court and eventually dismissed in 2024. As the ACLU put it, “The decision in Doe v. Mckesson affirms that the First Amendment protects protest leaders and organizers from being held liable for other people’s actions that they did not direct or intend.”

Religious freedom:

In Carson v. Makin (2022) Justice Roberts ruled Maine was forced to pay tuition at religious schools for students who live where there is no public school; Maine had formerly paid tuition only to nonsectarian schools in such situations.  In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), Justice Forsuch ruled to allow a football coach at a public school to pray publicly with his students. Previously, school officials were not allowed to participate in public prayer with students.

As the ACLU puts it, “both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses are vital to protecting religious freedom: the Establishment Clause protects against governmental endorsement and imposition of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause ensures the right to practice your faith without harming others. No more.” The Carson and Kennedy rulings, says the ACLU, lead "us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation."

Religious waivers: 

Groff v. DeJoy (2023). In this case, a postal worker who was an evangelical Christian was occasionally required to work on Sundays when other employees were not available. Groff sued the USPS on the grounds that they did not reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs. In a ruling by Alito, with all justice concurring, the Court decided that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting the religious accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business,” thereby raising the standard that had been used in the past.

See also related state court religious liberty decisions:The State of Indiana v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission (2018) decision allowed a discriminatory denial of service for religious reasons; so did. Arizona SB 1062 (2014).

Free speech: 

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): In this landmark ruling viewed as a a blow to free elections and democracy, Justice Anthony Kennedy led a 5-4 majority vote to rule that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, equating such spending to free speech.

Federal oversight/ regulations: 

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, also known as the Chevron case (2024). Here, Justice Roberts reversed an earlier policy that “if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.” Chevron now restricts the government’s ability to apply regulations; it takes power away from experts in government agencies to make decisions.

Upcoming SCOTUS Cases: The right to gender-affirming care: U.S. v. Skrmetti. Challenges Tennessee’s ban on hormone therapies for minors, such as hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers.

For more information on the SCOTUS docket, see https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

– Sally O’Driscoll