This is the second 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 handed down 28 opinions this year. 12 of them were unanimous opinions, some with concurrences. Most of the landmark decisions are decided at the tail end of the term, typically in the months of June and July. However, a few significant cases have been decided so far. Here’s a breakdown of the three most important decisions.
1. TikTok v. Garland
TikTok has had a complicated relationship with the U.S. government. The social media platform, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, blew up in the U.S. in late 2018. American social media platforms like Meta and Snap have to follow strict American regulations when handling user data. ByteDance, on the other hand, didn’t have to follow all the same regulations and also was subject to China’s state-mandated data requests, which essentially gave the Chinese Communist Party access to sensitive data on over a hundred million Americans.
In April 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was targeted at ByteDance and forced the company to sell TikTok to a non-adversarial entity, such as an American or Canadian company, within 270 days. TikTok and ByteDance brought the case to the court system, arguing that it was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous per curiam opinion, upheld PAFACA. Although PAFACA was targeted at ByteDance, it would also allow the U.S. to ban any other application the president declared was “foreign adversary controlled.” President Donald Trump has delayed the ban of TikTok twice since he took office, allowing time for ByteDance to sell TikTok.
2. J.G.G. v. Trump
Trump, in promising to carry out the largest mass deportation in American history, needed to find places to send illegal immigrants whose home countries may not accept them. One solution he found was to send illegal immigrants to El Salvador, where they would be contained in CECOT, a notoriously austere mass prison. The ACLU and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit asking the court system to block the deportations of Venezuelan men under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Judge James E. Boasberg filed a temporary restraining order stopping the White House from continuing to use the AEA to deport these people.
The Trump Administration urged SCOTUS to undo this, and in a 5-4 decision, the court declared that these deportation cases should be appealed individually (case by case) as habeas corpus cases in the jurisdiction where they occur, not altogether via an injunction in D.C. One notable thing left out of the decision, which was signed by all the Court’s conservative justices except for Amy Coney Barrett, was a ruling on whether it was constitutional for Trump to use the AEA to deport Venezuelans. Barrett joined the three liberals on the Court in dissent.
3. Bondi v. VanDerStok
This is a relatively simple case. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives started to regulate ghost guns — or kits that can be easily assembled into guns — under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Act, however, only mentions the word firearm and doesn’t cover firearm kits. Second Amendment advocate Jennifer VanDerStok sued, arguing the ATF did not have the power to regulate ghost guns under the Gun Control Act.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2, with the two most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissenting, that the ATF could regulate ghost guns as firearms.
