Last Month at the Supreme Court | 2023 Term Conclusion

Our final edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court for the 2023 Term captures the outcomes of several critical cases in which the Justices tackle modern issues like the constitutionality of social media speech restrictions, standing to sue officials allegedly pressuring social media companies, and challenges to a federal plan imposing emissions standards. The Court also evaluated the fundamental system of checks and balances taking on cases that explore evidentiary requirements for racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims, federal preemption of state abortion laws, and presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office. The following series of alerts offers analysis and practical takeaways. Click the links below to read more about each decision and look out for publications to resume when the Justices reconvene in the fall. Season premiere November 2024!

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, Puja Valera, A. Joseph Duffy, IV, or Ryan VanOver.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds in Speech Cases That First Amendment Facial Challenges Require Thorough Analysis of Law’s Application To Show It’s Largely Unconstitutional

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton that courts cannot rule on facial First Amendment challenges to laws without conducting a proper and thorough analysis of the law’s application. While the Court’s judgment was unanimous, three justices did not join Justice Kagan’s majority opinion in full. Justices Jackson, Thomas, and Alito each filed an opinion concurring with the judgment, with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas joining the Alito opinion. Justice Barrett also filed a concurring opinion. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Does Not Resolve Whether Federal Law Preempts Certain State Abortion Restrictions, Remands for Further Consideration

The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States without reaching the merits of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts an Idaho law criminalizing most abortions. As a result, a lower court order enjoining the Idaho law goes back into effect. Read the full synopsis here.  

Decision Alert: In Social Media “Jawboning” Case, Supreme Court Holds Individuals and States Lack Standing to Sue Federal Officials for Social Media Platforms’ Content Moderation

In Murthy v. United States, the Supreme Court held that private and state plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to sue federal officials who plaintiffs claimed violated their First Amendment rights by allegedly pressuring social media companies to restrict or remove content. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Stays Federal Plan That Would Impose Emissions Standards on States

On June 27, 2024, in four consolidated cases (lead case: Ohio v. EPA), the Supreme Court held that states and other groups challenging a federal plan imposing emissions standards are likely to succeed in showing that the EPA failed to reasonably explain the rule. Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion for the Court. Justice Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Read the full synopsis here.  

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Federal Anti-Corruption Statute Does Not Extend to Gratuities for State and Local Officials

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Snyder v. United States that 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), an anti-corruption statute criminalizing bribes to state and local officials, does not extend to gratuities. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justice Jackson wrote a dissent, joined by two other justices. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Former President Donald Trump Is Absolutely Immune From Criminal Prosecution for His Official Acts but Remands Case To Lower Courts To Determine Whether He Is Immune for Other Conduct While in Office

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Trump v. United States, holding that a former president is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a dissent. Read the full synopsis here.  

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Weighs Evidence of Racial Gerrymandering

On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court held 6-3 in Alexander v. S. Carolina State Conf. of the NAACP that the three-judge panel in the district court erred in finding that race predominated the design of a new proposed district in Charleston County. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion. Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence, with Justice Kagan authoring a dissent. Read the full synopsis here.  

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Statute of Limitations Begins To Accrue When Injury Occurs

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of The Federal Rsrv. Sys. that under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the statute of limitations for a claim challenging an agency rule begins to accrue when a party suffers injury, not when the agency rule was finalized. Justice Barrett authored the opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Read the full synopsis here.  

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds Government Must Show Jan. 6 Defendant Impaired or Attempted To Impair the Availability or Integrity of Evidence to Convict Him of Obstructing Congress’s Efforts To Certify the 2020 Election

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Fischer v. United States that, to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), the government must establish a defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. Read the full synopsis here.