This is the first article in a series of stories about the Supreme Court that will cover the influential cases from its previous term, the ongoing 2024 term and the long-term implications of its decisions.
The Supreme Court has always had to make controversial decisions. But recently, many Americans have felt that a lot of high-stakes cases are being decided by an increasingly polarized court.
Three terms ago, in the 2021-22 term, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending nearly five decades of federally protected abortion rights. Two terms ago, the justices banned race-based affirmative action. Both votes were along ideological lines.
Last year, no case received as much attention as the abortion or affirmative action ones of the past, but there were still many noteworthy cases.
Trump v. United States: In this case, SCOTUS ruled in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines that presidents have immunity from prosecutions relating to their official presidential acts. This case is significant because it protects Trump from many of the cases he was being prosecuted for.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: Under the “Chevron deference,” when there was a dispute over the interpretation of a law that a certain governmental agency dealt with, courts would defer the interpretation to the agencies. After the Court overturned this precedent in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo with a 6-2 margin, judges will now determine what these unclear statutes mean.
Garland v. Cargill: A significant percentage of guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic, which means that the gun can fire multiple times in succession without having to reload and wait between each shot. Attorney General Merrick Garland argued that bump stocks — which are weapon modifiers — could functionally turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns, for which there are much stricter regulations under the National Firearms Act. The court sided with Cargill in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruling that bump stocks were not machine guns.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson: Americans, and especially those in Western states with large homeless populations, are very familiar with the unhoused camping in tents on public streets. They are also well aware of the backlash from residents, businesses and visitors about the impact on safety and public services. Grants Pass, a city in Oregon, tried to enact punishments for sleeping on public land but was met with legal challenges, arguing it was cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ultimately decided — in another 6-3 decision along ideological lines — that camping on public land did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and was thus legal.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a conservative anti-abortion group, argued that mifepristone, a drug that blocks progesterone — a hormone necessary to sustain pregnancy — should be banned for not being properly approved. The decision in this case was straightforward: SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the AHM had no standing, meaning they had no legal right to bring the case.
Murthy v. Missouri: This was another case that was dismissed due to a lack of standing. Multiple states, led by Missouri, sued the Biden administration for alleged social media censorship. According to the states, the Biden administration had asked social media companies to remove some posts, which Missouri argued infringed on freedom of speech. The court ruled 6-3 that the states had no standing, with dissents from the three most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP: Gerrymandering is a common practice that involves redrawing congressional districts, often in questionable shapes, to maximize a party’s congressional success. South Carolina, led by a Republican legislature, recently did that. Although gerrymandering is perfectly legal, gerrymandering based on race is illegal. However, race is strongly correlated with political parties in South Carolina, and in doing so, the legislature was accused of gerrymandering based on race by the NAACP. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the justices ruled that the gerrymandering was not predominantly racial, but rather partisan, and thus legal.
Zackey v. Rahimi: In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that allowed officials to prohibit those with domestic abuse restraining orders from carrying guns. It was an 8-1 decision, with Justice Thomas as the sole dissenter.
Trump v. Anderson: Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible for office due to participating in an insurrection. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the ruling, arguing that states cannot decide who is eligible for federal offices like the presidency.
