The U.S. Supreme Court ended its most recent term in a flourish of activity, taking on cases that included the breadth of executive power, the legality of public camping and the regulatory ability of federal agencies.
The impact of these decisions is set to reverberate through courtrooms across the country for years to come, and lawyers and legal professionals will quickly have to become familiar with the new playing field.
One of the most consequential decisions for the country, if less so for day-to-day legal professionals, was the decision in People v. Trump.
The nation’s highest court ruled that presidents are immune for official acts, with absolute immunity for acts taken with respect to a president’s core constitutional power and a presumption of immunity for other official acts.
In a press release shortly after the decision, American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Director David Cole echoed the dissent of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law,” said Cole. “It ruled that former President Trump cannot be prosecuted for deploying Justice Department officials to pursue his own criminal ends … The opinion also sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected.”
Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky agreed with the majority.
“Presidents must have the ability to make decisions without the fear of going to jail,” said von Spakovsky. “Prosecuting official acts taken in office sets a dangerous precedent for future presidencies. Policy disagreements could quickly lead to throwing presidential opponents behind bars. That is un-American.”
Regulatory Agencies Get Defanged
On the business front, the Supreme Court ruled in ways that will significantly affect federal regulators and the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce alleged violations.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a 6-3 majority of justices overturned the four-decade-old Chevron deference. It will now be the courts, not the agencies themselves, who will have final say over the interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
Kristi Burton Brown, executive vice president of Advance Colorado, filed a brief for the organization in the case. She told Law Week via email that the Chevron doctrine has been hurting businesses across America for decades. She explained why Advance Colorado got involved and filed a brief in the case.
“Many of our members are business owners, and they’re tired of government overregulation, particularly when it’s forced on them by executive agencies and there’s no accountability for the bureaucrats making the regulations,” said Burton Brown.
Burton Brown added that she believes the ruling will open up more freedom and innovation for businesses.
“Congress will have to do their job and make laws while being accountable to their constituents,” said Burton Brown. “There won’t be so much hiding behind bureaucracy to attack business.”
David Doniger, senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council, said in a press release that the ruling was a profound and terrible change.
“Whether they’re making food safer, air cleaner or safeguarding prescription drugs, agencies need to be able to respond to complex problems the modern world throws at us,” said Doniger. “This decision is profoundly destabilizing and leaves policy—and public health—up to the individual preferences and political biases of unaccountable judges.”
In another decision that took some of the teeth out of regulatory agencies, the high court ruled in SEC v. Jarkesy that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, that defendant is entitled to a jury trial.
The President of Public Citizen, Robert Weissman, said in a press release that the decision will have near-term consequences for the financial system, hindering the SEC’s ability to seek penalties. But Weissman noted that the decision is likely to extend beyond the SEC.
“The rule adopted by the Court will impact other agencies that use administrative courts to impose civil penalties for violating regulatory protections,” said Weissman. “At least some agencies will need new authority from Congress, which is not doing much legislating, in order to be able to enforce the law.”
The American Bankers Association filed a brief with two other organizations in the case that urged the Supreme Court to rule that the previous administrative enforcement proceedings of the SEC were unconstitutional, according to a press release from the association.
“The specter of unfair enforcement proceedings at the banking agencies is a disincentive for talented professionals to serve as bank directors or otherwise work in the banking industry,” argued the brief. “Affirming the Fifth Circuit’s decision will guarantee that Americans who make their living in regulated industries can rest assured that they will receive a fair shake if called to account by their regulators.”
Governments Get Green Light on Homeless Camp Sweeps
Gov. Gavin Newsom of California ordered the state’s agencies on July 25 “to address encampments in their communities with urgency and dignity,” following the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson allowing cities to enforce laws regulating public camping.
Ed Johnson, the director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center, said the issue before the high court in the case was narrow but fundamentally important. Johnson and the Oregon Law Center represented Gloria Johnson and the other defendants in the case.
“The question was whether the City’s punishment scheme transgressed the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause by inflicting punishment on the city’s homeless residents for simply existing in the community without access to shelter,” said Johnson.
He noted that the court’s decision in favor of Grants Pass was limited to the same clause.
“There are many other legal theories that individuals forced into homelessness may use to challenge punishment schemes like the one in Grants Pass,” said Johnson. “However, in the meantime, cities may try to punish or police their way out of the homelessness crisis.”
He told Law Week he thinks this decision won’t solve the crisis, and said it’ll waste money and make matters worse.
“When our houseless neighbors have recent criminal convictions or even when they have to hide from the police, it makes it harder for them to escape homelessness,” said Johnson. “Punishing people for being homeless is not only not a solution to homelessness, it will increase the number of people who are forced to live outside.”
“But, I have been encouraged, in the weeks since the decision came down, by media reports stating that many cities plan to do what they know works — keep developing more affordable and supportive permanent housing while, at the same time, providing services and shelter to homeless people in their communities,” added Johnson.
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and Central City Association filed an amicus brief in support of Grants Pass in the case, and the organizations issued a joint press release following the Supreme Court’s decision in the case.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to provide cities with the ability to enforce laws in the interest of public health and safety. Local governments now have one more mechanism to address homelessness. The Chamber remains committed to effectively addressing this issue which affects so many in our community,” said Maria Salinas, president & CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
Insurers Will Get Their Day in Court
In Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Gibson Dunn associate attorney David Casazza told Law Week via email that the Supreme Court’s holding in the case was vital to protecting insurers and promoting the integrity of mass tort Chapter 11 reorganizations in the future.
Casazza and Gibson Dunn represented Truck Insurance Exchange before the Supreme Court.
“Chapter 11 reorganizations have become increasingly common for companies facing mass tort liabilities – not only in the asbestos context but in a range of areas from wildfires, to alleged abuse, to products liability,” said Casazza. “But for decades, the insurers of these debtors couldn’t be heard in bankruptcy proceedings, even though those insurers were often paying most or all of the debtors’ tort liabilities.”
He noted that courts applied the judge-made “insurance neutrality” doctrine, which barred insurers from being heard unless they could prove a bankruptcy plan affected its rights in a narrow set of ways.
“The Supreme Court’s unanimous holding guarantees that insurers – and other parties with a vested stake in a reorganization – will have a voice in their insured’s bankruptcy,” said Casazza. “That’s a critical voice because, as in our case, an insurer is often the only party with the incentive to object to a faulty plan. This decision will protect insurers and it will also assist bankruptcy courts, which have an independent obligation to see that a plan complies with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code.”
Employees Receive Stronger Discrimination Protections
In Mudrow v. City of St. Louis, Brian Wolfman, the director of the Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic at Georgetown Law and attorney of Jatonya Muldrow, told Law Week via email that the clinic got involved in the case in mid-2022. He said this decision will make it easier for employees harmed by workplace discrimination to prevail.
“It was important for the Court to decide that employees did not have to show that a discriminatory job action imposed a significant disadvantage or some other heightened harm requirement,” said Wolfman. “As long as the employee shows that she suffered any harm, she can recover if she suffers discrimination.”
While the claim in this case was related to Title VII, Wolfman said the decision will have broader implications in employment law.
“The decision will apply not only to Title VII but also to other statutes barring workplace discrimination, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,” said Wolfman. “That, too, will benefit employees harmed by workplace discrimination.”
Supreme Court Weighs in On Discovery in Copyright Cases
In 2023, despite an 8% drop in civil case filings, U.S. district courts saw a 10% increase in intellectual property rights filings, with copyright-related cases jumping even higher at 25%. The recent decision in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy could have a big impact on those cases.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that a copyright owner can obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.
Chelsea Lewis, founding and managing partner at Lewis Law, told Law Week via email that she believed this case was significant for the Supreme Court to review. Lewis got involved in this case at the district court level and represented Sherman Nealy.
“The question of whether the discovery rule applies to the timeliness of copyright claims and the scope of damages that can be recovered is critical for both copyright holders and alleged infringers,” said Lewis. “Clarifying this aspect of the Copyright Act ensures a uniform application of the law across different jurisdictions, providing clearer guidelines on when claims can be filed and the potential financial implications for both parties involved.”
The Supreme Court also held that the three-year period for filing suit begins to run when a claim accrues, which the court assumed without deciding was upon its discovery.
“This ruling establishes that copyright holders can seek damages for any infringement discovered within the three-year limitations period, regardless of when the infringement occurred,” explained Lewis.
She noted that the precedent will likely encourage copyright holders to monitor for potential infringements and act promptly on their discovery.
“It also places greater responsibility on potential infringers to ensure they are not violating copyrights, as old infringements could still result in significant financial liability if discovered later,” added Lewis.
More broadly, Lewis said the decision could also influence how courts interpret other statutes of limitations in intellectual property cases.