Review of the Major Decisions of the 2022-2023 Supreme Court Term
By: Skylar Blumenauer
From voting rights to affirmative action, the Supreme Court’s 2022-2023 term featured a variety of decisions on some of the most controversial and partisan topics within politics.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: 303 Creative LLC’s owner, Lorie Smith, refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples because she opposes same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Despite Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, the Court found in a 6-3 decision that the First Amendment prohibits the state from forcing the designer to create designs that do not align with her beliefs—Smith’s websites are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. While public accommodations such as Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act can be key in promoting civil rights, it must bow to constitutional imperatives in doing so.
Allen v. Milligan: After the 2020 census, voters and organizations challenged Alabama’s new redistricting plan for illegally packing Black voters into a single district and spreading the rest of the Black voters out across multiple districts. The challenge claimed that the plan was in violation of the racial discrimination. In a 5-4 decision, the Court found that the redistricting map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the Constitution does not exempt state legislatures from the constraints of state law. The decision formed a three-part framework for evaluating claims of racial discrimination in voting: the plaintiffs must prove that a minority group is geographically compacted to constitute a majority in a district, the minority party is politically cohesive, and the political process is thus not equally accessible to minority voters.
Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation: Under the 1868 Treaty, the Navajo Reservation is the “permanent home” of the Navajo Nation. The Reservation lies almost exclusively in the drainage basin of the Colorado River, a river that is federally regulated because of water scarcity. In 2003, the Navajo Nation sued federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act for failure to acknowledge their water rights. In two 5-4 decisions, the Court found that the 1868 treaty did not bestow the affirmative duty on the United States to secure water for the tribe. Dissenting Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson characterize the case as the Navajo Nation asking the United States to identify water rights, and under this characterization, they would allow the Navajo Nation’s case to proceed.
Biden v. Nebraska: After the Biden administration announced its intent to forgive $10,000 in student loans for borrowers with annual incomes of less than $125,000, Nebraska and five other states challenged the program for violating both the separation of powers and the Administration Procedure Act. The Court, in a 6-3 decision, found that the Secretary of Education does not have the authority under the HEROES Act (Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Student Act of 2003) to establish such a student loan forgiveness program. States were found to have the standing to challenge the program because the estimated feeds would be injurious to the state. Additionally, under the HEROES Act, the Secretary’s ability to “waive or modify” provisions does not extend to canceling $430 billion of student loans. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic justified the nature of the debt cancellation plan.
Counterman v. Colorado: Billy Ray Counterman was found guilty of stalking a girl over Facebook. Counterman claimed that his threats were not “true threats” and, therefore, any charge would violate his First Amendment right to free speech. In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not apply to “true threats.” To prove that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, it must be determined that the defendant subjectively understood the threatening nature of the statement—a threat is determined by the recipient’s perception, not the speaker’s intent. There must also be a subjective mental-state requirement to differentiate statements that are consciously made threatening.
Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc v. Taamneh: Nohemi Gonzalez was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris, France in 2015. The attack was one of many that took place worldwide on November 15th. ISIS, a terrorist organization, claimed responsibility for the attacks in a written statement and a YouTube video. Gonzalez’s father claimed that Google abetted international terrorism by allowing terrorist organizations to use its platforms and computer algorithms to their advantage. Gonzalez also claimed that Twitter, Facebook, and Google failed to take meaningful, aggressive, or successful action to prevent terrorists from using their services. The question presented in Gonzalez examined the accountability of interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations through information provided by another content provider. The Court did not reach the question presentenced in this case. The same facts applied in Twitter v. Taamneh, but it focused more on the terrorist attack that took place the same day in Turkey. The Court unanimously found that Twitter did not “knowingly’ provide assistance and cannot be said to have abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack in Istanbul, Turkey. To aid and abet, a party must perform wrongful injury, the defendant must be generally aware of taking part in an illegal activity, and the defendant must knowingly take a substantial role in the principal violation. In this case, the defendants did not intentionally and substantially assist ISIS, and there was no evidence that Twitter did more than transmit information, which is its intended use.
Groff v. Dejoy: Gerald Groff, a U.S. Postal Service worker, refused to work Sundays because of his affiliation with Christianity. USPS accommodated him by switching shifts with employees, but there were times when there were not any other employees to swap shifts. He did not work on the occasions where it was not possible to switch a shift, and USPS fired him. Groff sued USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for not fully accommodating his religion. The Court unanimously found that Title VII requires an employer to prove substantially increased costs concerning the act of denying religious accommodation. The Court rejected the “more than de minimis” test for hardships established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) in favor of a “substantial increased costs” test.
Haaland v. Brackeen: The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) restricts the removal of Native American children from their families and establishes that Native children who must be removed should be placed in Native foster homes or with extended family. A lawsuit challenged the law for violating the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, found that the ICWA does not violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. Further, the Court found that Congress has the authority to create legislation regarding Native American tribes. The challengers did not demonstrate an unlawful injury for their challenges of equal protection and non-delegation to hold.
Moore v. Harper: After the 2020 Census, North Carolina gained an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and required redistricting. The first and second proposed maps were challenged for partisan gerrymandering, and the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered a special master to create the map. The state legislators asked the Supreme Court whether the Constitution’s Elections Clause delegates the authority to regulate federal elections to solely state legislatures, a theory known as the independent state legislature theory. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the Constitution does not vest independent authority to state legislatures in federal elections. State legislatures are subject to checks and balances and bound to the constraints of state constitutions. Further, while state courts can interpret state laws that deal with federal elections, they cannot override federal laws.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency: When Michael and Cantall Sackett began building a home, the Environmental Protection Agency intervened and said the construction violated the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA claimed that the wetlands in their lot are considered “navigable waters,” which are regulated by the CWA. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the Clean Water Act only extends to wetlands if they have a surface connection with a relatively permanent body of water. Further, they found the use of “waters” in the CWA to refer to bodies of water that are permanent, flowing, or standing; it is not enough to broadly claim the presence of water. Wetlands, therefore, were not found to be included under CWA’s “waters.”
Students for Fair Admission v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina: Students for Fair Admissions sued Harvard College for its admissions process, claiming that it discriminates against Asian American applicants in favor of white applicants in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 5-3 decision, the Court found that Harvard’s admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They reasoned that while a diverse student body could be a state interest, race could not be used as a quota. Similarly, Students for Fair Admissions sued the University of North Carolina (UNC), claiming that its admissions process’s use of race as a factor violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court, in a 5-3 decision, also found UNC’s admissions program in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither of the admissions programs meets the strict scrutiny requirement for an exception to the equal protection clause. Additionally, both programs were found to have failed to adhere to the anti-stereotyping and termination criteria of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger. The Court did find, however, that an applicant’s discussion of their race can be considered as long as it is tied to a discussion of contributions the student can bring to the university.
United States v. Texas: The Secretary of Homeland Security issued the Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law in September 2021. The guidelines were an effort to allocate limited resources in areas where complete deportation was not feasible, and they were challenged by Texas and Louisiana. In an 8-1 decision, the Court found that Texas and Louisiana did not have the standing to challenge the guidelines. Neither state suffered a legal and judicially cognizable injury required to establish a standing. The ruling allowed the guidelines, which were previously blocked, to take effect.
Sources:
"303 Creative LLC v. Elenis." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-476. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Allen v. Milligan." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1086. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Arizona v. Navajo Nation." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1484. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Biden v. Nebraska." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-506. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Counterman v. Colorado." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-138. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-51. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Gonzalez v. Google LLC." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1333. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Groff v. DeJoy." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-174. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Haaland v. Brackeen." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-376. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Moore v. Harper." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1271. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1496. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
"United States v. Texas." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-58. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building