What’s at stake: US Supreme Court 2023-2024 Term

What’s At Stake:
US Supreme Court 2023-2024 Term

Updated: 6/28/2024

October 2, 2023 marked the beginning of a new Supreme Court term which includes several important cases with the potential for long-lasting, widespread impact. The 6-3 majority conservative Court will, as in the previous term, revisit issues decided years ago, raising the possibility of turning back the clock on legal precedent and our rights. National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) will be closely watching the cases listed in this document and adding more as the Supreme Court adds to its docket. Be sure to check back regularly.

Gun Violence

United States v. Rahimi

In 2020, a Texas court issued a civil restraining order against Zackery Rahimi due to accusations of assault by his girlfriend. The order barred him from specified harassing behavior toward his girlfriend and her child as well as prohibited him from owning a firearm. As a suspect in another crime, Rahimi’s residence was searched, and police found a firearm, leading him to be charged with unlawful firearm possession due to the previous restraining order’s provision. His appeal of the charge was rejected at the district court level and, initially, the Fifth Circuit Court agreed. In the meantime, the Supreme Court issued its decision in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) which changed the way the court assessed Second Amendment cases. In February 2023, as a result of the Bruen decision, the Fifth Circuit struck down the law that kept individuals from owning firearms when they had a court restraining order involving harassment or threats to an intimate partner. As a result, Rahimi’s conviction of unlawful gun possession was overturned. The Department of Justice appealed the case to the Supreme Court which will decide whether the law barring individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Oral Arguments: November 7, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Laws, policies, programs, and services that protect every woman from all forms of abuse, exploitation, harassment, discrimination, and violence.” Further, NCJW supports laws to reduce gun violence and promote gun safety.
Decision: On June 21, 2024, in an 8-1 decision with Justice Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter, the Court found that Congress had the power to restrict firearms possession by an irresponsible or dangerous person.

Garland v. Cargill

On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 60 people and wounding hundreds more. The gunman used a firearm modified by a bump stock which enables bullets to be fired more rapidly. In response to this deadly massacre, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) classified bump stocks as machine guns in December 2018, a reversal of an earlier policy. This reclassification which subjected owners to criminal liability was challenged in court until 2022 when the Supreme Court refused to take up the issue. This Supreme Court, however, has taken a case brought by Michael Cargill who, because of the new ATF regulation, surrendered his bump stock but concurrently sued the ATF for exceeding its authority in reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns. A district court sided with the ATF but the Fifth Circuit, acting en banc, reversed that decision leading to the appeal which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear.

Oral Arguments: February 28, 2024

Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports laws to reduce gun violence and promote gun safety. Removing the regulation that criminalizes bump stocks may well lead to more and deadlier gun violence.

Decision: On June 14, 2024, in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. This decision ended the ban on bump stocks despite the deadly toll they have taken.

Reproductive Rights

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Medication abortion is the most commonly used form of abortion, utilizing a two-drug protocol including mifepristone, which was approved in 2000 after rigorous testing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug has been used safely by more than five million people but has been targeted by anti-abortion groups since its approval. In 2022, a lawsuit was filed by such groups against both the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging their initial approval and recent policies allowing expanded access. In April, a Texas district court blocked the FDA’s approval, a move that the Fifth Circuit allowed while attempting to reinstate unnecessary restrictions that were in place before 2016. The US Department of Justice sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court which issued a temporary stay, leaving mifepristone on the market, until the Fifth Circuit finished with the case. In August, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision which left mifepristone on the market but imposed the pre-2016 burdensome restrictions. The Justice Department asked the US Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit ruling and, on December 13, 2023, the Court agreed to hear the case and decide whether the FDA’s approval was ‘arbitrary and capricious.’ This case could greatly impact the availability of mifepristone as well as the FDA’s regulatory authority.

Oral Arguments: March 26, 2024

Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports comprehensive, affordable, accessible, confidential, equitable, and quality health products and services, including abortion, gender-affirming, reproductive, maternal, and sexual health care. Mifepristone is a proven safe and essential health product.

Decision: On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously voted that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine did not have standing to bring the suit against Mifepristone. Although this decision preserves access to Mifepristone, it does not prevent future challenges to its availability.

Moyle v. United States / Idaho v. United States

The state of Idaho’s highly restrictive anti-abortion law, which went into effect when the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022, includes criminal penalties for anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion, even when the pregnant person’s health is in danger. In 2022, the Biden Administration sued because the Idaho law conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). A district court and the full Ninth Circuit agreed and blocked that aspect of the law from going into effect. The US Supreme Court stepped in on January 5, 2024 and allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban, including in medical emergencies, and agreed to hear the case in the spring. The Supreme Court’s announcement came just a few days after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that despite federal guidance to the contrary, emergency room doctors in Texas were not required to perform emergency abortions.

Oral Arguments: April 24, 2024

Why We’re Watching: This case goes directly to the heart of NCJW’s work for abortion access. Our Jewish tradition mandates that when the life of a pregnant person is in danger, their life takes precedence over that of the fetus. This case, along with the case on medication abortion, threatens the availability of federal abortion access.

Decision: In a ruling that accidentally slipped out of the Supreme Court’s press office the day before it was formally released on June 27, 2024, the Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted” meaning that the Court should not have accepted the case. This move sent the case back to the lower courts for consideration. The ruling provided a welcome but temporary reprieve for pregnant people in Idaho in need of emergency medical care that includes abortion.

Civil Rights

Acheson Hotels v. Laufer

In 2020, Deborah Laufer, a disabled woman who uses a wheelchair, sued Acheson Hotels, LLC which operates hotels in Maine. She did so because their website did not provide sufficient accessibility information as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which requires public accommodations like hotels to provide enough accessibility information so that disabled individuals can decide whether the hotel will meet their needs. Laufer is a self-professed ADA ‘tester’ who monitors hotel websites to see if they comply with the ADA and has sued hundreds of such hotels. The federal district court in Maine agreed with Acheson Hotels that Laufer had no intention of checking in and therefore could claim no injury. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed the lower court decision. Their decision was based on a case in which a fair housing tester successfully sued a realty company for racial discrimination because they lied about the availability of a rental unit on account of the tester’s race even though the tester was not really interested in renting the unit. Testers have often been key to identifying and investigating civil rights violations. Acheson appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed to take the case. In the meantime, Acheson revised its website and, along with Laufer, asked for the appeal to be dismissed as moot. Regardless of this, the Supreme Court decided it would go ahead with the appeal and consider whether the case was in fact moot as part of the argument.

Oral Arguments: October 4, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW advocated for the passage of the ADA and continues to be a strong supporter of disability rights. In addition, we understand the important role that testers play in the implementation and enforcement of civil rights laws and are concerned about the implications of this case.

Decision: On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because Deborah Laufer withdrew her case against Acheson.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

In 2022, the Republican-controlled South Carolina legislature approved a gerrymandered congressional map, moving hundreds of thousands of voters into new districts, making sure that the percentage of Black voters in all but one district would be insufficient to afford those voters the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As a result, Black voters in six of seven congressional districts have no meaningful chance to elect the candidates of their choice. The state NAACP along with other organizations, alleging racial gerrymandering, sued under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which bars legislatures from sorting voters based on race. A three-judge panel in the federal district court found that the map constituted racial gerrymandering. The state legislature appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the redistricting was motivated not by race but by partisan politics. In the past, the Supreme Court has said that partisan politics may not be used as a proxy for racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court will decide whether South Carolina’s redistricting was based on politics rather than race. 

Oral Arguments: October 11, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports voting rights and has opposed laws and policies, like gerrymandering, that deny Black voters and people of color equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.

Decision: On May 23, 2024, in a 6-3 decision, the Court decided that the South Carolina redistricting was allowable partisan redistricting. The majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, rejected the federal district court’s finding that the redistricting was racially motivated, which is unconstitutional.

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Jatonya Muldrow, a sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department, sued her employer alleging sex discrimination because she was involuntarily transferred from the Intelligence Division to a patrol position. She contends that she was transferred because her supervisor wanted to hire a man for her job. The Eighth Circuit ruled against her because her transfer had not resulted in a significant employment disadvantage. Sergeant Muldrow appealed to the Supreme Court which asked the Biden Administration for their opinion. The Solicitor General responded that the Eighth Circuit ruling had no foundation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the part of the law that protects against employment discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and decide whether Title VII bars discrimination in transfers if a court has not decided separately that the transfer caused a significant disadvantage to the employee. 

Oral Arguments: December 6, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW opposes sex discrimination in employment as well as other spheres and supports Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s protections against discrimination. We believe that additional hurdles that are not in the law diminish that protection. 

Decision: On April 17, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must prove that the transfer caused some harm with respect to the condition of employment but that harm does not have to be significant.

Economic Justice

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assoc. of America

Founded in 2020 in response to the 2008 financial crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) works to protect consumers from financial abuses, fraud, and unfair practices by financial institutions. From its inception, it has been the target of Republican legislators, supported by powerful financial corporations. In creating the bureau, Congress attempted to shield it from partisan pressure by funding it through fees paid to the Federal Reserve rather than through the annual appropriations process. This has been challenged as a violation of separation of powers. In a case, challenging the CFPB’s rules governing payday lenders, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the funding for the CFPB was unconstitutional and therefore the payday lending rule was invalid — calling into question all of the other rulings of the bureau. The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal. In another case in 2020, the Supreme Court allowed the CFPB to continue operating but determined that the provision of the law that created the bureau that said the CFPB director could only be removed ‘for cause’ violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the CFPB.

Oral Arguments: October 3, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Consumer laws, policies, and programs that protect and enhance financial well-being, general welfare, and promote economic justice.” The CFPB has proved to be an invaluable protection for consumers against abuse and unfair practices.

Decision: On May 16, 2024, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court asserted that the funding mechanism for the CFPB was constitutional.

Moore v. United States

The Moores, a couple from Washington state, owned a 13% share in a company based in India which reinvested its profits rather than distributing dividends. As a result, the couple never received any income. The “mandatory repatriation tax” of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requires US taxpayers owning shares in foreign companies to pay a one-time tax on their share of the company’s earnings regardless of whether they received a payout from their investment. Article I of the Constitution requires Congress to apportion any “direct taxes” among the states, but the 16th Amendment carves out an exception to that rule which allows Congress to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived,” without apportioning that tax among the states. The Moores went to federal court to challenge the repatriation tax as a violation of the 16th Amendment. They contend that income must be distributed before it can be taxed and therefore the repatriation tax is a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and appealed to the Supreme Court. Depending on what the Supreme Court decides, this case could impact other tax laws and result in the loss of billions of dollars to the US treasury, imperiling an important revenue stream for, among other things, critical social programs. 

Oral Arguments: December 5, 2023
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Equitable laws, policies, and programs, including fiscal and tax policies, that provide a level of services that ensure a sufficient standard of living to meet basic human needs.”
Decision: In a 7-2 decision on June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court turned back the challenge and ruled that this tax is not unconstitutional.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

The shelter for unhoused people in Grants Pass, Oregon, is full, and there is essentially no affordable housing in the city. As a result, those who cannot find a place in the shelter have been sleeping in the city’s parks and streets which is a violation of several municipal laws which bar camping on public property, among other actions. In 2013, the city council voted to step up enforcement of the laws that bar the use of blankets, pillows, or even cardboard boxes when sleeping in the city — a civil infraction punishable by an ever-increasing fine and, if the violations continue, the criminal charge of criminal trespassing could result. While the city claims that the laws apply to everyone, those bringing the case claim that it essentially criminalizes homelessness. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a similar Idaho law constituted unconstitutional ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ Thereafter, Gloria Johnson with two other unhoused people challenged the constitutionality of the Grants Pass law. A federal district court issued a permanent injunction to stop the implementation of the law and was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit which then denied the city’s request to rehear the case. At the city’s request, the Supreme Court will hear the case and decide whether the Grants Pass law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 

Oral Arguments: April 22, 2024

Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that a democratic society must provide for the needs of those unable to provide for themselves and that there should be equal access to safe, affordable, quality housing. In the absence of such programs and resources, we oppose laws that would essentially criminalize homeless people.

Decision: On June 28, 2024, in a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the Grants Pass ordinances that penalize sleeping outdoors, essentially criminalizing homelessness in a move that will likely worsen that crisis.

Protecting our Democratic Institutions

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

After the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented a rule that required the fishing industry to pay for monitoring at sea, Loper Bright Enterprises, a herring fishing company operating in the Atlantic, sued in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals contending that the 1976 law that deals with conservation and the management of the fishing industry — the Magnuson-Stevens Act — did not authorize the NMFS to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that they failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures. The DC Circuit applied the landmark 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision and found for the NMFS. The Chevron doctrine or deference, as it is known, compels the federal courts to defer to the federal agency interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress gave that agency the power to administer. In 2022, a coalition of commercial fisheries challenged the DC Circuit decision and appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse the NMFS rule “whether by clarifying Chevron or overruling it.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson participated in the case when she was on the DC Circuit and so has recused herself from this appeal. With several of the justices openly critical of Chevron over the years, this case goes well beyond the fishing industry and directly targets the power of government agencies to administer and, in general, carry out their basic missions. It has the potential to radically alter their power and effectiveness.

Oral Arguments: January 17, 2024

Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that our democracy is strengthened by the role of federal agencies in providing the expertise and services essential to the well-being of our society and communities. We believe this case could bolster efforts to weaken government institutions to the detriment of our social safety net, the environment, and other vital functions.
Decision: Ruling on both this case and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, on June 28, 2024, the Court voted along ideological lines to overturn the 40-year Chevron deference. This decision puts judges and courts over agency expertise when it comes to interpreting statutes.  

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

Similar to the Loper Bright Enterprises case, this case was brought by herring fishing companies, regulated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), including Relentless, Inc. The companies argue that an industry-monitoring program put in place by the US Commerce Department disproportionately burdens their companies which have to pay for the monitoring. Given that the MSA is ambiguous about this monitoring program, the district court and later the First Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Chevron deference to support the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the MSA. This case challenges the decades-old Chevron preference and opens the door for the Supreme Court to eliminate the power of federal agencies to protect consumers, the environment, and generally fulfill their missions. 

Oral Arguments: January 17, 2024

Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that our democracy is strengthened by the role of federal agencies in providing the expertise and services essential to the well-being of our society and communities. We believe this case could bolster efforts to weaken government institutions to the detriment of our social safety net, the environment, and other vital functions. 

Decision: On June 28, 2024, the Court issued a decision in this case with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see above). The decision overruled the long-standing Chevron deference and thus weakened the protection that federal agencies provide.