Last year, during the 2023-24 term, The Supreme Court of the United States heard some cases that dominated headlines, and many less-known cases. The Court also deliberated on important cases that could (and did) impact how our nation addresses important issues and rights.
Below are the 12 most game-changing cases the Supreme Court heard and decided in 2024.
WHO WRITES THE RULES
Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo
About the case: When Congress passes a law, they may leave terms undefined (e.g. ‘waters of the United States’ are protected from pollution — but what’s considered a ‘water of the United States?’) and matters unaddressed (e.g. the union protection law was written decades before email was invented, so it does not comment on ‘workers’ organizing rights regarding email use). For the last 40 years, Congress has entrusted environmental and labor experts, in these instances, to fill in the blanks and carry out a law’s aims in ways that protect communities. This case could shift the balance of power, with the justices threatening to take that power for themselves.
Decision: On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision overruling the Chevron doctrine. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the practice of deferring to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes and instead recalibrate the balance of power between federal agencies. The Court voted 6–3 to abandon this framework and recalibrate the balance of power between federal agencies and courts. Courts will likely have significant ramifications across all federal agencies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This holding overturns decades-long precedent and, while it does not overturn thousands of previous cases, represents a major shift in the legal framework.
CHECKS ON EXECUTIVE POWER
Trump v. United States
About the case: Former President Donald Trump was indicted in August 2023 on four counts arising from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the January 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Trump claimed that he cannot be prosecuted for his official acts as president and that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he has first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court will decide whether a former president enjoys immunity — and if so, to what extent — from criminal prosecution for conduct during their time in office.
Decision: On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision outlining the scope of presidential immunity. The Court held that presidents have absolute immunity for actions taken while president that fall under their core constitutional authority. Additionally, they have presumptive immunity for official acts that fall within the outer limits of their official duties and no immunity for unofficial acts.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Alexander vs. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
About the Case: After the completion of the 2020 Census, the South Carolina legislature redrew its election maps, moving tens of thousands of Black voters into different districts and creating “safe” Republican districts to secure elections. The NAACP sued and a three-judge panel concluded that the district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The legislators have taken the case to the Supreme Court.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that South Carolina’s 2022 congressional map was not a racial gerrymander. The 6-3 decision, issued on May 23, 2024, permits the state to continue using the map despite criticism that it diminishes Black voting power.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
About the Case: A town in Oregon has been implementing a slew of anti-unhoused population laws, including criminal penalties for sleeping outside. The Supreme Court will decide whether criminalizing people for existing when they have nowhere else to go falls under the 8th Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that local ordinances criminalizing camping on public property, even when enforced against homeless individuals without shelter options, do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. This ruling essentially allows cities to enforce laws against public sleeping without regard for the lack of available shelter options; the decision was made by a 6-3 vote on June 28, 2024.
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States
About the Case: The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) guarantees everyone treatment for emergency medical conditions. However, anti-abortion extremists in Idaho, as in other states, passed a law prohibiting doctors from providing life-saving care when that care is an abortion. D
Decision: The court initially fast-tracked the appeal and temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban. However, after reviewing the case, the court dismissed it as improperly granted. The court then reinstated a lower court order that permitted emergency abortions under EMTALA, returning the case to the lower courts without a ruling on its merits.
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
About the Case: Medication abortion in the U.S. is commonly conducted using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2000 and is used in over half of all U.S. abortions. However, an organization founded specifically to challenge abortion rights sued to have access to mifepristone restricted back to only administered by a doctor instead of by prescription.
Decision: On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The court determined that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) lacked standing to sue the FDA. This ruling reinstated the availability of mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortions.
CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
About the Case: Purdue Pharma was found by a court to be liable in part for the massive opioid epidemic surrounding their drugs, especially OxyContin. Purdue declared bankruptcy but the majority-owning family, the Sacklers, shielded billions of dollars from proceedings and kept the cash for themselves. The Supreme Court will decide if they have to put up their own money in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Decision: On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans cannot include non-consensual third-party releases.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
About the Case: A hedge fund manager has sued the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) for finding him guilty of securities fraud.
Decision: On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment guarantees defendants the right to a jury trial in a court of law. The Court determined that the SEC cannot compel defendants into internal administrative proceedings in such cases.
Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney
About the Case: In 2022, a Buffalo, NY, Starbucks staff attempted to unionize. In return, Starbucks laid off many of its employees. The National Labor Relations Board ordered Starbucks to reinstate the employees, and the corporation in turn sued.
Decision: The Supreme Court determined that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is required to utilize the same four-factor test as other parties when pursuing a preliminary injunction. This decision increases the difficulty for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions in cases involving unfair labor practices.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
About the Case: In 2015, the EPA set new air-quality standards for ozone pollution that held states responsible for pollution that spread into other states. It published a federal plan mandating power plants and other industrial facilities in these 23 states to implement existing controls more effectively from 2023 and adopt commonly used controls by 2026. Ohio and 11 other states sued to stop the rule.
Decision: In a 5-4 ruling on June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court blocked the EPA from enforcing its “Good Neighbor” rule, which required 23 states to reduce air pollution that impacted downwind states.
GUN SAFETY AND CONTROL
United States v. Rahimi
About the Case: After the Supreme Court’s devastating ruling in 2022’s Bruen case, an adverse decision in Rahimi could hand the NRA another win by putting firearms back into the hands of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders – overturning decades of precedent in various states and increasing the rampant violence that has come to dominate American communities.
Decision: In an 8-1 decision on June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting gun possession by domestic abusers subject to protective orders. This ruling reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision, confirming that the Second Amendment does not guarantee gun ownership rights for those under restraining orders.
Garland v. Cargill
About the Case: Bumpstocks are add-on mechanisms that essentially turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns increasing their lethal capabilities. In 2019, the ATF issued a rule classifying bump stock weapons as machine guns, essentially outlawing them.
Decision: On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks in a 6–3 decision.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
About the Case: After the Parkland mass shooting, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), under the leadership of Maria T. Vullo, encouraged banks and insurance agencies to cut ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA subsequently sued and said this encouragement violated the First Amendment.
Decision: In a unanimous decision favoring the NRA, the Supreme Court held that New York’s Superintendent of Financial Services, Maria T. Vullo, infringed upon the NRA’s First Amendment rights. The court underscored that government officials cannot use their authority to suppress or penalize speech they disapprove of.