Amid signs of dysfunction and disarray, Chief Justice John Roberts reasserted
his authority, while the influence of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito
waned.
Listen to this article · 10:46 min Learn more
By Adam Liptak Graphics by Alicia Parlapiano
Reporting from Washington
July 2, 2024 Updated 11:38 a.m. ET
Former President Donald J. Trump had a very good year at the Supreme Court. On
Monday, the court ruled that he is substantially immune from prosecution on
charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election. On Friday, the court cast doubt
on two of the four charges against him in what remains of that prosecution. And in
March, the justices allowed him to seek another term despite a constitutional
provision barring insurrectionists from holding office.
Administrative agencies had a horrible term. In three 6-to-3 rulings along
ideological lines, the court’s conservative supermajority erased a foundational
precedent that had required courts to defer to agency expertise, dramatically
In a Volatile Term, a Fractured Supreme Court
Remade America
Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  Your guide to the 2024 elections.
Get it sent to your inbox.
October Term 2023
lengthened the time available to challenge agencies’ actions and torpedoed the
administrative tribunals in which the Securities and Exchange Commission brings
enforcement actions.
The court itself had a volatile term, taking on a stunning array of major disputes
and assuming a commanding role in shaping American society and democracy. If
the justices felt chastened by the backlash over their 2022 abortion decision, the
persistent questions about their ethical standards and the drop in their public
approval, there were only glimmers of restraint, notably in ducking two abortion
cases in an election year.
The court was divided 6 to 3 along partisan lines not only in Monday’s decision on
Mr. Trump’s immunity and the three cases on agency power, but also in a run of
major cases on homelessness, voting rights, guns and public corruption.
An unusually high proportion of divided decisions in argued cases — more than
two-thirds — were decided by 6-to-3 votes. But only half of those decisions featured
the most common split, with the six Republican appointees in the majority and the
three Democratic ones in dissent.
The justices reached unanimous or lopsided rulings in other major cases, including
ones letting abortion pills remain widely available, allowing the government to
disarm domestic abusers, restoring Mr. Trump to the Colorado ballot, endorsing
the National Rifle Association’s First Amendment rights and rejecting a challenge
to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Irv Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute,
said the court’s liberals by some measures had a good term.
“But most of those wins are an artifact of so many cases coming from the law-free
Fifth Circuit,” he said, referring to the federal appeals court based in New Orleans.
“The judges in that circuit seem to have some kind of competition to see who can
write the most precedent-twisting, common-sense-defying decision.”
Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, agreed, saying that “the Fifth Circuit is
making the Supreme Court seem more moderate than it is.”
Even when the justices agreed, though, they very often could not find consensus on
the rationale. Indeed, they issued concurring opinions at a record rate, the highest
since at least 1937 and probably ever. Some of those opinions revealed fractures on
the right, particularly on the role history should play in constitutional
interpretation.
A Lack of Consensus in Agreement
The rate of concurring opinions — more than one per case — hit a record high.
Source: Analysis by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael
Nelson, Penn State; using the Supreme Court Database. • Years reflect the start of terms. • The New York
Times
Gregory G. Garre, a lawyer with Latham & Watkins who served as U.S. solicitor
general in the administration of George W. Bush, said that “there are signs of
dysfunction” among the justices.
“The court is taking an extraordinarily small number of cases,” he said, “and taking
an extraordinarily long time to decide them. And the justices are writing more and
more individual opinions to express their own views. This is especially pronounced
on the right side of the court and has to create some friction among the justices.”
1.05
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Concurring
opinions per case
0.2
’40 ’50 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 ’00 ’10 ’23
There was a sense of disarray as the term ended. On Wednesday, the court briefly
posted and then promptly withdrew an abortion decision that would not be
formally issued until the next day.
On Thursday, it made 13 separate corrections to four sets of opinions. In one of
them, blocking a Biden administration plan to combat air pollution, Justice Neil M.
Gorsuch had repeatedly referred to nitrogen oxide as nitrous oxide.
That confusion, Professor Karlan said, “would be just funny (in a laughing-gas sort
of way) if the court weren’t simultaneously kneecapping expert agencies that do
know the difference.”
A look at how individual justices voted in divided cases issued after oral arguments
brings trends at the court into sharp relief, according to data compiled and
analyzed by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, both of Washington University in
St. Louis, and Michael J. Nelson of Penn State.
A Highly Polarized Court
Some of the current justices are among the most conservative and most liberal in recent
history. Each bar represents the rate at which each justice since 1937 voted for a liberal result.
RATE OF LIBERAL VOTES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Sotomayor
Jackson
Kagan
Former
justices
Roberts
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Source: Analysis by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael
Nelson, Penn State; using the Supreme Court Database. • Votes in divided cases. • The New York Times
By that measure, the court is extraordinarily polarized. Two of the four most
conservative justices to serve since 1937 are on the current court: Justices
Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. (The others were Chief Justices William
H. Rehnquist and Warren E. Burger.)
In that same time span, two of the five most liberal justices are currently sitting:
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. (The others were Justices
Thurgood Marshall, William J. Brennan Jr. and William O. Douglas.)
Overall, in divided cases argued in the last term, Democratic appointees voted for a
liberal result 83 percent of the time and Republican ones 33 percent of the time — a
50 percentage point gap.
The Court’s Partisan Gap
How often each of the court’s ideological blocs voted for a liberal result.
Source: Analysis by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael
Nelson, Penn State; using the Supreme Court Database. • Votes in divided cases. Years reflect the start of
terms. • The New York Times
Alito
Thomas
100%
83%
80% Democratic
appointees
60%
40%
33%
Republican
appointees
20%
’53 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 ’00 ’10 ’23
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s leadership of the court was called into question
in 2022 by his lonely concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization, one in which he failed to persuade any of his five conservative
colleagues to join him in restricting but not eliminating the constitutional rights to
abortion.
Two years later, things are looking up for the chief justice. He assigned himself an
unusually large proportion of the term’s majority opinions in the biggest cases,
including the ones on Mr. Trump’s immunity from prosecution, the Jan. 6
prosecutions, the Second Amendment, the Chevron doctrine and administrative
tribunals.
The chief justice was in the majority in divided cases 94 percent of the time, more
than any other member of the court and tying his own record in the term that
ended in 2020. No other chief justice since at least 1953 has been in the majority as
often.
But it is Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh who has been setting the pace over time.
Since he joined the court in 2018, he has been in the majority 89 percent of the time,
a higher rate than any justice since at least 1953.
It was not long ago that some heralded Justice Thomas as the court’s true leader,
but this term’s data rebuts that idea. He was, for instance, in the majority in
divided cases just 63 percent of the time.
Last term, Justice Alito was part of the pair most likely to disagree, voting with
Justice Elena Kagan just 21 percent of the time. This term, Justice Thomas was
part of both pairs most likely to disagree, voting with Justices Sotomayor and
Kagan just 9 percent of the time.
At the other end of the spectrum, the two justices most likely to vote together were
members of the court’s liberal wing, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, at 94 percent.
A look at the three justices most apt to vote together in divided cases confirms two
bits of conventional wisdom and dispels a third. The court’s three liberals —
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson — voted together 81 percent of the time,
more than any other combination of three justices. They were trailed by three
Republican appointees often said to represent the court’s middle — Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — at 75 percent.
But agreement among the remaining three justices, who are often lumped together
as the court’s hard-right wing — Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch — was much
lower, at 59 percent. That refutes the story of a 3-3-3 court and highlights Justice
Gorsuch’s independence.
Trump Justices Are Not the Court’s Most Conservative
How often each justice voted for a liberal result.
Source: Analysis by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael
Nelson, Penn State; using the Supreme Court Database. • Votes in divided cases. • The New York Times
Indeed, he voted for liberal results in divided cases 45 percent of the time, often
siding against the government and in favor of powerless litigants. Since he joined
the court in 2017, he has voted for the government just 35 percent of the time, the
lowest rate of any member of the court.
100%
Kagan
Sotomayor
80% Jackson
60%
Trump appointeesBarrett
Gorsuch
40%
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Thomas20%
Alito
Last term This term
When Justices Thomas and Alito were both in the majority in divided cases, Justice
Gorsuch voted with them less often than any other member of the court’s
conservative wing.
Put another way, none of the three members of the court appointed by Mr. Trump
are as conservative as Justices Thomas and Alito.
Justice Barrett, the third Trump appointee, is particularly worth watching,
Professor Epstein said. “Some indicators show that Barrett — though still way
more conservative than her predecessor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg — is moving
somewhat to the left,” she said. “This term she overtook Roberts as the Republican
appointee casting the highest percentage of liberal votes in divided cases.”
Mr. Trump has expressed disappointment with his choices, and he may be inclined
to nominate more extreme justices, perhaps drawing from the Fifth Circuit, should
he gain another term. The four oldest members of the court are Justice Thomas,
76; Justice Alito, 74; Justice Sotomayor, 70; and Chief Justice Roberts, 69.
While Mr. Trump was president, his administration did quite poorly in the Supreme
Court in signed decisions in orally argued cases in which the United States, an
executive department, an independent agency or the president himself was a
party, prevailing only 42 percent of the time, the lowest rate since at least Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s administration. The Biden administration, by contrast, has been on
the winning side 54 percent of the time.
The Trump Administration Has Fared Poorly
The former president won personal victories at the court this term, but his administration has
had the lowest success rate in the modern era.
ADMINISTRATION SUCCESS RATE 50%
Biden 54%
Trump 42%
Obama 50%
W. Bush 62%
Clinton 63%
H.W. Bush 70%
Reagan 75%
Carter 66%
Source: Analysis by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael
Nelson, Penn State; using the Supreme Court Database. • The New York Times
The term that ended on Monday was studded with more potential blockbusters
than any in recent memory. The court defused a few of them, but the term ended
with a series of earth-rattling explosions.
When the justices return in October, they will face what is, for now at least, a more
usual docket. Among the cases the court has agreed to decide are ones on
transgender care for minors and so-called ghost guns.
There is little reason to think the court will find consensus in those cases.
Mr. Garre said the quarrels among the justices, and particularly the conservative
ones, called to mind a remark ascribed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who is
said to have compared the Supreme Court to “nine scorpions in a bottle.”
“Chief Justice Rehnquist once described the job of chief as akin to herding cats,”
Mr. Garre said. “To pick up on Holmes’s saying, maybe the better analogy these
days is herding scorpions.”
Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of
Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak
Alicia Parlapiano is a Times reporter covering government policy and politics, primarily using data and charts.
More about Alicia Parlapiano
Ford 74%
Nixon 67%
Johnson 69%
Kennedy 60%
Eisenhower 63%
Truman 65%
Roosevelt 66%
How the Supreme Court
Ruled in the Major Cases
of 2024
By Adam Liptak, Abbie VanSickle and Alicia Parlapiano Updated July 1
On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court ruled that former
President Donald J. Trump is partly immune from prosecution on
charges that he used his office to try to subvert the 2020 election,
returning the case to the lower courts for additional analysis.
Immunity for Former Presidents  6-3
Rights of Social Media Platforms  9-0
Jan. 6 Obstruction Charges  6-3
Power of Federal Agencies  6-3
Restrictions on the Homeless  6-3
Emergency Abortion Care  Dismissed
Opioids Settlement  5-4
Cross-State Air Pollution  5-4
Administrative Courts  6-3
Disinformation on Social Media  6-3
Gun Rights  8-1
Bump Stocks for Guns  6-3
Abortion Pills  9-0
N.R.A. and the First Amendment  9-0
Racial Gerrymandering  6-3
Agency Funding  7-2
Trump’s Ballot Eligibility  9-0
No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many
cases with the potential to transform American society.
The court decided that Mr. Trump can stay on the ballot and that an
abortion pill will remain widely available. It overturned a
foundational precedent on the power of federal agencies and
rejected a central element to a settlement for those affected by the
opioid crisis.
In recent years, some of the court’s biggest decisions have been out
of step with public opinion. Researchers at Harvard, Stanford and
the University of Texas conducted a survey in March to help
explore whether that gap persists.
Immunity for Former Presidents
Trump v. United States
6-3 ruling on July 1
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald J. Trump is partly immune from
prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. The justices
returned the case to the lower courts for additional analysis, saying that the president
may be prosecuted for private conduct, but not official acts.
Is there a major precedent involved?
There are at least two. In 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that President Richard M. Nixon, then still in office, had to comply
with a subpoena seeking tapes of his conversations, rejecting his claims of executive
privilege.
But in 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a closely divided court ruled that Nixon, by then out of
office, was absolutely immune from civil lawsuits “for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of
his official responsibility.”
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-to-2 vote in Trump v. Vance that Mr. Trump had
no absolute right to block the release of his financial records in a criminal investigation.
“No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce
evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,”Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
wrote for the majority.
What was at stake?
The court’s decision amounts to a major statement on the scope of presidential power. It
may effectively delay Mr. Trump’s trial for his attempts to overturn his 2020 loss at the
polls.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
To Justify His Immunity Defense, Trump Flips the
Prosecution Script
April 23, 2024
Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s
Immunity in Unexpected Direction
April 26, 2024
Think former presidents are not immune from criminal
prosecution for actions they took while president
Think former presidents are
immune
74% 27%
Social Media Platforms’ First Amendment Rights
Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton
9-0 ruling on July 1
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
By returning the cases to lower courts, the Supreme Court left in limbo challenges to
laws in Florida and Texas that curb the power of social media companies to moderate
content.
The laws’ supporters argue that the measures are needed to combat perceived
censorship of conservative views on issues like the coronavirus pandemic and claims of
election fraud. Critics of the laws say the First Amendment prevents the government
from telling private companies whether and how to disseminate speech.
Is there a major precedent involved?
There are at least two. In 1974, in Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court struck
down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a “right to reply” to newspaper
articles critical of them.
In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the court said a state constitutional
provision that required private shopping centers to allow expressive activities on their
property did not violate the centers’ First Amendment rights.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2022, in the Texas case, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked that state’s law while
the appeal moved forward. The vote was 5 to 4, with an unusual coalition in dissent.
What was at stake?
The cases arrived garbed in politics, as they concern laws aimed at protecting
conservative speech. But the larger question the cases present transcended ideology. It
is whether tech platforms have free speech rights to make editorial judgments — for
now, the court ducked making any major statement on the issue.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment
Applies to Social Media
Feb. 25, 2024
Obstruction Charges for Jan. 6 Assault
Fischer v. United States
6-3 ruling on June 28
Liberal bloc
Think states cannot prevent social media companies
from censoring speech
Think states should be able to
prevent censoring
60% 41%
Jackson
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court sided with a rioter involved in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021,
ruling that prosecutors may not use a federal obstruction statute to charge him.
Is there a major precedent involved?
In a series of decisions, the court has narrowed the reach of federal criminal laws aimed
at public corruption and white-collar crime.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2015, the Supreme Court limited the sweep of the statute at issue in the case, the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for four of the justices
in the majority, warned against cutting the law “loose from its financial-fraud mooring” in
a case that involved a Florida fisherman who had thrown undersized fish into the Gulf of
Mexico.
What was at stake?
The case has the potential to affect the federal case against former President Donald J.
Trump for plotting to subvert the 2020 election, as well as hundreds of other Jan. 6
prosecutions. But the decision’s precise effect on those other cases was not immediately
clear.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
Think the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were
criminal
Think the events were not
criminal
71% 29%
More on the issue
Supreme Court’s Review of Jan. 6 Charge Has Already
Freed Some Rioters
April 16, 2024
Power of Federal Agencies
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo; Relentless v. Department of Commerce
6-3 ruling on June 28
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The court reduced the power of federal agencies by overruling a foundational 1984
precedent. That ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, required courts to
defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. Chevron is one of the most cited cases in American law.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Chevron fell out of favor at the Supreme Court in recent years, with several justices
criticizing it. The court, which had invoked Chevron at least 70 times to decide cases, has
not done so since 2016.
“The question is less whether this court should overrule Chevron,” Paul D. Clement, one
of the lawyers for the challengers, told the justices, “and more whether it should let lower
courts and citizens in on the news.”
What was at stake?
The decision threatens regulations on the environment, health care, consumer safety,
nuclear energy, government benefit programs and guns. It also shifts power from
agencies to Congress and to judges.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
A Fight Over a Fishing Regulation Could Help Tear Down
the Administrative State
Jan. 15, 2024
A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden
Conservative Backer
Jan. 16, 2024
Restrictions on the Homeless
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
Courts should defer to administrative agencies
when laws are unclear Courts should not defer to agencies
51% 49%
6-3 ruling on June 28
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court upheld ordinances in Oregon aimed at preventing homeless people
from sleeping and camping outside, ruling that they did not violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. The argument by the homeless plaintiffs rested heavily on a 1962 decision,
Robinson v. California, in which the Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing a person
for being addicted to narcotics violated the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that
homelessness, like drug addiction, is a state of being that cannot be punished.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2018, an appeals court ruled in Martin v. Boise that Boise, Idaho, had infringed on the
constitutional rights of homeless people by making it a crime to sleep outside, even
when they had nowhere else to go.
What was at stake?
The case is likely to have major ramifications on how far cities, particularly in the West,
can go to clear homeless people from streets and other public spaces.
Where does the public stand?
Think banning homeless people from camping outside even when
local shelters are full violates the Constitution
Think it does not violate
the Constitution
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
The Town at the Center of a Supreme Court Battle Over
Homelessness
April 20, 2024
Homelessness Case Draws Unusual Alliances:
Conservatives and California Democrats
April 22, 2024
Emergency Abortion Care
Moyle v. United States
Dismissed June 27
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed a case about emergency
abortions in Idaho, temporarily allowing women to receive an abortion when their health
is at risk. The decision reinstates a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total
ban on abortion.
Is there a major precedent involved?
The case is another reminder that the court has not been able to leave the question of
abortion to states, as it promised in overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly half a century.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
There are several court battles about various aspects of state abortion bans, including a
fight in Texas over the federal law at issue in the case, the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Labor Act.
58% 42%
What was at stake?
It was the first time the Supreme Court considered a state law criminalizing abortion
since it overturned Roe v. Wade. A broad decision in the case could have affected more
than a dozen states that have enacted similar restrictions.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
What to Know About the Federal Law at the Heart of the
Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case
Jan. 18, 2024
Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country
May 24, 2022
Opioids Settlement
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
5-4 ruling on June 27
Liberal bloc
Think Idaho hospitals must provide abortions in medical
emergencies
Think they are not
allowed
82% 18%
Jackson
Conservative bloc
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court ruled that members of the wealthy Sackler family could not be
shielded from civil lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis as part of a bankruptcy
settlement that would channel billions of dollars to victims and their families.
Is there a major precedent involved?
The case was the first time the Supreme Court addressed whether a bankruptcy plan
could be structured to give civil legal immunity to a third party, without the consent of all
potential claimholders. The legal maneuver under scrutiny has become increasingly
popular in bankruptcy settlements.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
No, but the Supreme Court paused the Purdue Pharma deal until it reviewed the plan.
What was at stake?
The decision jeopardizes a carefully negotiated deal that promised up to $6 billion
toward states and others who have waited for years for some kind of settlement. More
broadly, the case could have implications for similar agreements insulating a third party
from liability.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
Think the Sackler family should not keep immunity from future
lawsuits
Think family should keep
immunity
74% 27%
More on the issue
Judge Overturns Purdue Pharma’s Opioid Settlement
Dec. 16, 2021
Fate of Billions for Opioid Victims From Sacklers Rests
With Supreme Court
Dec. 3, 2023
Cross-State Air Pollution
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
5-4 ruling on June 27
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court temporarily stopped the Biden administration's “good neighbor” plan,
which requires factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states to cut air
pollution that drifts into Eastern states.
Is there a major precedent involved?
In 2014, in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, the
Supreme Court ruled that an E.P.A. regulation intended to curb cross-state pollution was
permissible.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In just the past two terms, the court has limited the E.P.A.’s authority to address climate
change and water pollution.
What was at stake?
The ruling was another blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to protect the
environment. Prevailing winds carry emissions of nitrogen oxide toward Eastern states
with fewer industrial sites. The pollutant causes smog and is linked to asthma, lung
disease and premature death.
More on the issue
E.P.A. Tells Dozens of States to Clean Up Their
Smokestacks
March 15, 2023
Administrative Courts
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
6-3 ruling on June 27
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house
administrative courts are unlawful.
Is there a major precedent involved?
In Atlas Roofing v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in 1977, the
Supreme Court rejected a challenge to an agency’s tribunals, saying they could hear
enforcement actions seeking to vindicate public rights.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2018, in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that
in-house judges at the agency had been deciding cases without constitutional
authorization.
What was at stake?
The ruling against the S.E.C. may not only require it to file cases in federal court but
could also imperil administrative tribunals at many other agencies, including the Federal
Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Social Security Administration and the National Labor Relations Board.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
Supreme Court Seems Wary of In-House S.E.C. Tribunals
Nov. 29, 2023
Think federal agencies bringing actions in administrative proceedings
rather than in federal courts is not constitutional
Think it is
constitutional
68% 32%
Disinformation on Social Media
Murthy v. Missouri
6-3 ruling on June 26
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
The Supreme Court handed the Biden administration a major practical victory, rejecting
a challenge to its contacts with social media platforms to combat what administration
officials said was misinformation.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan in 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that informal and
indirect efforts by the government to suppress speech can violate the First Amendment.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The Supreme Court also considered a case that raised similar issues, National Rifle
Association v. Vullo, when it ruled that the National Rifle Association may pursue a First
Amendment claim against a New York state official who had encouraged companies to
stop doing business with it.
What was at stake?
The ruling left fundamental legal questions — on the role of the First Amendment in the
internet era — for another day.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
Ruling Puts Social Media at Crossroads of Disinformation
and Free Speech
July 5, 2023
Second Amendment Rights of Domestic Abusers
United States v. Rahimi
8-1 ruling on June 21
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Think federal officials urging private companies to block or
remove users violates the First Amendment
Think it does not violate the First
Amendment
62% 38%
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to
domestic violence restraining orders to own guns does not violate the Second
Amendment.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. In 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court struck down
a New York law that put strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. The decision
established a new legal standard, one that required judges to assess restrictions on gun
rights by turning to early American history as a guide.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
Lower courts have struck down federal laws prohibiting people who have been convicted
of felonies or who use drugs from owning guns.
What was at stake?
It is the court’s first statement on the scope of a major ruling it issued in 2022. That
earlier decision, Bruen, vastly expanded gun rights and has left lower courts in turmoil as
they struggle to hunt down references to obscure or since-forgotten regulations.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
In the Gun Law Fights of 2023, a Need for Experts on the
Weapons of 1791
March 14, 2023
Gun Law Before Court Is Most Often Used as a Deterrent
Nov. 7, 2023
Think barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms does
not violate their Second Amendment rights Think it violates their rights
74% 26%
Bump Stocks for Guns
Garland v. Cargill
6-3 ruling on June 14
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration overstepped its bounds by
enacting a ban on bump stocks, gun attachments that increase a semiautomatic
weapon's rate of fire to hundreds of bullets per minute.
Is there a major precedent involved?
Instead of bringing a Second Amendment challenge, the case was aimed at curtailing the
power of administrative agencies, in this instance, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case involved how to interpret a federal law that banned machine guns, the National
Firearms Act of 1934. The definition was broadened by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to
include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun. At issue was
whether bump stocks fell within those definitions. Federal appeals courts split on the
issue.
What was at stake?
The decision did away with one of the few efforts at gun control that gained political
traction after the Las Vegas massacre in 2017.
More on the issue
What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?
Oct. 4, 2017
Abortion Pills
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
9-0 ruling on June 13
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court upheld recent F.D.A. guidelines for distributing a commonly used
abortion pill by mail and telemedicine, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to
sue.
Is there a major precedent involved?
The case is one of two on abortion that the court considered after it eliminated the
constitutional right to abortion in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked efforts to severely curb access to the
pill, mifepristone, as an appeal moved forward. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A.
Alito Jr. publicly noted that they would have allowed steps seeking to limit the availability
of the pill, and Justice Alito wrote a dissent.
What was at stake?
The ruling ensures, for now, full access to the drug, which is used in the majority of
abortions in the United States. But it does not unravel restrictions on the pill in more
than a dozen states that have passed near-total abortion bans since the court overturned
Roe v. Wade.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
How Common Is Medication Abortion?
March 26, 2024
N.R.A. and the First Amendment
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
9-0 ruling on May 30
Think the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone should not be
revoked Think the approval should be revoked
68% 33%
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court ruled that the National Rifle Association may pursue a lawsuit
against a New York State official who the group says violated the First Amendment by
trying to persuade companies not to do business with it after the school shooting in
Parkland, Fla.
Is there a major precedent involved?
As in Murthy v. Missouri, the case implicated the 1963 decision Bantam Books v.
Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court ruled that informal and indirect efforts by the
government to suppress speech can violate the First Amendment.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case is one of two centering on when government advocacy edges into violating free
speech rights. The other, Murthy v. Missouri, concerned the Biden administration's
dealings with social media companies.
What was at stake?
The case focused on when persuasion by government officials crosses into coercion.
Although a government official is permitted to “share her views freely and criticize
particular beliefs,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a unanimous opinion, that official
may not “use the power of the state to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
Where does the public stand?
Think the state regulator’s behavior violates the
N.R.A.’s First Amendment rights Think it does not violate the N.R.A.'s rights
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
The A.C.L.U. Has a New Client: The National Rifle
Association
Dec. 9, 2023
Racial Gerrymandering
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P.
6-3 ruling on May 23
Liberal bloc
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
The Supreme Court cleared the way for South Carolina to keep using a congressional
map that had been deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, reversing a lowercourt
ruling that said the map resulted in the “bleaching of African American voters” from
a district.
53% 47%
Is there a major precedent involved?
Yes. A series of Supreme Court decisions say that making race the predominant factor in
drawing voting districts violates the Constitution.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
The case is superficially similar to one from Alabama in which the court ruled last year
that state lawmakers had diluted the power of Black voters in drawing a congressional
voting map. But the two cases involve distinct legal principles.
The Alabama case was governed by the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights
statute, and the one from South Carolina by the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
What was at stake?
The decision makes it harder to challenge voting maps as racial gerrymanders when
lawmakers say their goal in drawing them was to secure a partisan advantage.
The ruling sent the case back to the lower court. But because the Supreme Court did not
resolve the case sooner, the contested map will be used in the 2024 election. The new
boundaries helped make the district in question a Republican stronghold.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
How Maps Reshape American Politics
Nov. 7, 2021
Nancy Mace’s District Moved Right. Then She Helped
Oust McCarthy.
Oct. 11, 2023
Think these changes to the districts are unconstitutional Think they are constitutional
67% 33%
Agency Funding
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America
7-2 ruling on May 16
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett Thomas
The court ruled that the way Congress funds a consumer watchdog does not violate the
appropriations clause of the Constitution.
Is there a major precedent involved?
There is no precedent squarely on point.
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a different part of the law creating the consumer
bureau was unconstitutional, saying that Congress could not insulate the bureau’s
director from presidential oversight.
What was at stake?
A ruling against the bureau, created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the
financial crisis, could have cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it took
in the dozen years of its existence. That includes agency rules — and punishments
against companies that flout them — involving mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans
and banking.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
Wall Street’s Most Hated Regulator Faces a Fundamental
Threat
Oct. 1, 2023
Trump’s Ballot Eligibility
Trump v. Anderson
9-0 ruling on March 4
Liberal bloc
Sotomayor Jackson Kagan
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Think this agency funding structure is
unconstitutional Think it is constitutional
55% 45%
The Supreme Court ruled that states may not bar former President Donald J. Trump from
running for another term, rejecting a challenge from Colorado under Section 3 of the
14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding office.
Is there a major precedent involved?
No. The Supreme Court had never before considered the scope of Section 3. The
unsigned majority opinion relied in part on an 1869 decision from Chief Justice Salmon P.
Chase. But that was, a dissent from the court’s three liberal members said, “a
nonprecedential, lower-court opinion by a single justice in his capacity as a circuit
judge.”
Are there recent rulings on the subject?
No. The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in December disqualifying Mr. Trump from
the state’s primary ballot acknowledged that “we travel in uncharted territory.”
What was at stake?
A decision that Mr. Trump was ineligible to hold office would have been a political
earthquake altering the course of American history.
Where does the public stand?
Source: SCOTUSPoll
More on the issue
Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Opinions on Trump’s
Ballot Eligibility
March 4, 2024
In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Cannot Avoid Politics
March 5, 2024
Think Trump is eligible to run in 2024 Think Trump is not eligible
53% 47%
Polling data is based on a survey conducted online by YouGov from March 18 to 25 using a
representative sample of 2,218 American adults. It comes from the SCOTUSPoll project by
Stephen Jessee, University of Texas at Austin; Neil Malhotra, Stanford University; and Maya
Sen, Harvard University. Numbers may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Question
wording and responses broken down by political party are available here.
#########