What’s at Stake: US Supreme Court 2024–2025 Term
What’s at Stake:
US Supreme Court 2024–2025 Term
Updated: 9/27/2024
The US Supreme Court term begins on October 7, 2024 amid a contentious election season, growing concern over Supreme Court justices’ ethical behavior, and a precipitous drop in public trust in the high court. The 2024–25 docket already includes several high-profile cases with others likely to be added. The cases listed on this page are of particular interest to NCJW and we’ll be closely watching them. We’ll add new cases and updates here as the term progresses, so be sure to check back regularly for updates.
Quick Links to Cases:
Gun Violence
Garland v. VanDerStok
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed it included a technical definition of “firearms” that became outdated in recent years as firearms have been redesigned. Weapons such as AR-15’s, Glock pistols, and ‘ghost guns’ — which are unserialized and untraceable firearms that are put together by components purchased either as a kit or as separate pieces — that proliferate our streets today do not fit the original definition. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the federal agency that enforces the GCA, updated the definition of firearms to take into account these new kinds of firearms. Plaintiffs from the firearms parts industry sued, asserting that the ATF had gone beyond its congressionally mandated authority when it issued the redefinition. In 2023, a federal district court judge in Texas agreed and blocked the rule from going into effect nationwide. The Biden Administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene and, in a 5–4 vote, they reinstated the rule while the case went before the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court, leading the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. As Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned, this could lead to a “flood of untraceable ghost guns into our Nation’s communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes.”
Oral Arguments: October 8, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Laws to reduce gun violence and promote gun safety.”
Reproductive Rights
United States v. Skrmetti
Twenty-four states have laws banning hormone therapy for transgender youth with gender dysphoria. Tennessee’s law, passed in 2023, prohibits gender-affirming care for youth under 18 including puberty blockers and gender-transition surgery if its purpose is to allow the young person to live an identity different from that assigned at birth. Kentucky enacted a similar law in 2023 over the governor’s veto. A group of transgender youth and their parents along with a doctor filed suit against the Tennessee law to reverse the ban. A district court judge ruled that those challenging the law did not have the right to challenge the gender-transition surgery ban since they did not indicate that they were seeking the surgery, but the judge put the other part of the law on hold while the case continued. The judge did, however, agree that the ban violated parents’ rights to seek medical treatment they deem appropriate for their children as well as the constitutional right to equal treatment given that some young people still had access to hormone therapy for other medical reasons. Meanwhile in Kentucky, a district court, responding to a suit against that state’s ban also brought by transgender youth and their parents, agreed with the plaintiffs but put the case on hold while it was on appeal. The Sixth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ rulings and reinstated the Tennessee and Kentucky bans. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the portion of the laws banning hormone treatment for gender dysphoria violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Oral Arguments: TBA
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Comprehensive, affordable, accessible, confidential, equitable, and quality health products and services, including abortion, gender-affirming, reproductive, maternal, and sexual health care.”
Civil Rights
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
Karyn Stanley, a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2016 but continued working until her disease forced her to retire from the job she held for more than 20 years. The city cut her retirement benefits after she retired. Stanley sued, citing the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) protection against discrimination based on disability. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that she could not sue under the ADA because she was no longer employed by the city. Three circuits around the country ruled the same way in similar cases although two others ruled in favor of the employees, citing the ADA was created to protect disabled workers. Based on this discrepancy across circuits, Stanley asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the ADA allows former employees to sue over discrimination in the provision of benefits earned while the workers were employed.
Oral Arguments: TBA
Why We’re Watching: NCJW champions equal rights for all regardless of disability, among other characteristics. NCJW was active in advocating for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act and supports its important protections against discrimination.
Lackey v. Stinnie
In a case out of Virginia, Damian Stinnie had his drivers license suspended without the opportunity of a hearing — not uncommon in Virginia. Along with others, Stinnie sued the state under civil rights statutes saying the practice deprived them of due process. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, restoring the licenses. But before the case could go to trial, the Virginia state legislature repealed the law, and the court ruled that the case was moot. Under federal law, the “prevailing party” in civil rights cases are entitled to compensation to cover costs of the litigation. Stinnie and his co-plaintiffs petitioned the court for attorney’s fees given that they had prevailed by obtaining a preliminary injunction. However, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles fought the petition citing a decades-old Fourth Circuit holding that a grant of a preliminary injunction did not make a plaintiff the “prevailing party.” The plaintiffs were denied attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement of fees. The DMV appealed the case to the Supreme Court which will hear arguments. The results of this case could have a significant impact on whether individuals — often without means — will be able to seek judicial relief when their civil rights are violated.
Oral Arguments: October 8, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW’s Resolutions support: “Equal rights and equitable opportunities for all people must be guaranteed, and all forms of discrimination must be eliminated.” Facilitating access to justice for those who may not be able to afford to seek redress from discrimination or in other cases of civil rights violations is critical to achieving equal rights.
Economic Justice
E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera
Faustino Carrera and two other workers sued E.M.D. Sales, a DC-area food distributor, for failure to pay overtime when they worked more than a 40-hour workweek. E.M.D. argued that the employees were “outside salesmen” and therefore were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the law that mandated overtime pay. The employees argued that they did not make sales but instead were tasked with managing inventory, stocking and restocking shelves, removing expired products, and issuing credits to stores. A district court ruled that E.M.D. Sales did not prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the employees were exempt — a decision upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court on appeal. E.M.D. appealed to the Supreme Court asking them to establish that employers in the Fourth Circuit need only show a “preponderance of the evidence” to prove that employees were exempt from the FLSA. The Fourth Circuit is the only circuit that applies this heightened burden of proof to employers.
Oral Arguments: November 5, 2024
Why We’re Watching: NCJW supports laws, policies, and programs that ensure fair pay. NCJW works to ensure the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act as a means of establishing and enforcing fairness and dignity for workers.