The Supreme Court's second half of 2023-2024 will see the justices decide on several large-scale cases on topics ranging from the First Amendment rights of social media companies to abortion pills to the powers of federal agencies. is scheduled to be heard.
After a short winter recess, the high court resumed oral arguments on January 8, and is expected to continue through the spring, with opinions expected in early summer.
Here are some notable lawsuits to keep an eye on.
NRA finds unexpected ACLU ally in Supreme Court challenge to New York's alleged blacklisting
Supreme Court of Washington DC (AP Photo/Jacqueline Martin)
Social Media: Moody (FL AG) v. NetChoice, LLC; NetChoice, LLC v. Moody; NetChoice LLC v. Paxton
Discussion date: Not yet set
problem: Whether a social media platform's handling of user content is protected by the First Amendment.
Case: Florida and Texas require separate laws; Companies like X Facebook and Facebook will host third-party communications and prevent those companies from blocking or removing users' posts based on political views.
Discussion: The law would address what some lawmakers are calling the “censorship” of conservative messages and ban politicians like former President Trump who violate policy regarding offensive or “problematic” content. It is intended to. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the tech industry in a Florida case, stating that these companies, as private entities, “engaged in constitutionally protected speech activity in controlling and controlling the content they disseminate on their platforms.” “
Impact: President Trump and a coalition of 16 states are among those filing separate court briefs supporting Florida. Biden administration He has opposed state laws.
Special counsel in Trump case unconstitutional, former President Reagan says
A crew casts walleye and sorts nets off the coast of Maine. (Photo by Mailee Osten-Tan/SOPA Images/LightRocket, Getty Images)
Enforcement Power: Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo
Oral date: January 17th
problem: A separate legal effort to overturn so-called “Chevron” deference by the Supreme Court could be subject to wide-ranging appeals. That 1984 decision states that where Congressional federal laws are not clearly defined, federal agencies should be given broad discretion to interpret and enforce those policies.
Case: Lead plaintiff Roper Bright Enterprises of New Jersey, represented by the Action Cause Institute, is forcing Atlantic herring fishermen to pay more than $700 a day to monitors who ride their boats to observe their activity and report to the government. It is challenging the federal government's order.
Supreme Court deals final blow to Alabama Republican Party in redistricting battle
Discussion: A federal appeals court has ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service's interpretation of federal fishing law is “reasonable.” Fishermen argue that Congress does not give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the authority to compel fishermen to pay monitoring fees. Advocates argue that the Chevron precedent forces courts to defer to the agency's interpretation of “ambiguous” statutes. Supporters of continued compliance argue that an adverse ruling would create “chaos” throughout the federal government and concentrate rule-making power in the hands of unelected judges who are not experts on specific policy issues. There is.
Impact: Conservatives have long been outraged by Chevron's decision. The high court has gradually reined in federal regulators, including a June 2022 ruling that limited the EPA's authority over greenhouse gas emissions. Overturning Chevron or further weakening federal discretion would have profound implications for key areas such as the environment, workplace safety, consumer protection, public health, and immigration. Courts have the option of broadly addressing the use of “Chevron” deference or clarifying specific areas of its application by federal agencies.
Abortion Pills: FDA vs. Hippocratic Medical Alliance
Discussion date: Not yet set
problem: Lawsuit seeking to restrict access to mifepristone. medical abortion.
Case: The FDA approved mifepristone for terminating pregnancy in 2000, and it is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol. This pill combination is approved for use up to the 10th week of pregnancy.
The Supreme Court will hear the challenge in January. 6 Charges that could affect Trump
Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a drug that is typically used in combination with misoprostol to produce medical abortions and manage early miscarriages during pregnancy. (Getty Images)
Discussion: Groups opposed to the FDA argue that the agency did not follow proper procedures when determining drug safety risks. The Biden administration has warned that an unfavorable ruling would greatly disrupt how drugs are tested and brought to market. The Supreme Court allowed the FDA to regulate the drug while the case was litigated on the merits. The case is still in litigation, but a judge could issue a nationwide injunction that would block medication abortion even in states where it is legal. .
Impact: The high court's decision could affect 40 million women across the country, and a research group at the Guttmacher Institute says more than half of abortions in the U.S. use mifepristone. . The Supreme Court's involvement in perhaps the most contentious social issue could have enormous political implications in a presidential election year.
Gun Rights: Garland vs. Cargill
Discussion date: Not yet set
problem: Whether the bump stock device is a “machine gun” as defined by federal law. This is because bump stock devices are designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into an “automatic multi-shot weapon” by a single function of the trigger. . ”
Case: Following the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 60 people and injured more than 500, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule of interpretation concluding that bump stocks are machine guns. . According to the ATF, a bump stock is an attachment that allows semi-automatic rifles to mimic the “periodic rate of fire that mimics near-continuous automatic fire” of fully automatic rifles. The device essentially replaces the gun's stock and pistol grip, causing the gun to bounce back and forth, repeatedly “bumping” the trigger into the shooter's finger. Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, sued the government after ATF regulations forced him to turn over some bump stocks.
Bump stocks on display in Harrisonburg, Virginia, March 15, 2019. (AP Photo/Steve Herber, File)
Discussion: “This is not a gun rights case. This is an executive power case,” said NCLA President and General Counsel Mark Chenoweth.
“Congress never gave the ATF the authority to rewrite federal criminal law regarding machine guns, and it cannot do so. Enacting federal criminal law is the sole authority of Congress, and the Trump and Biden administrations have “Congress made a grave constitutional error by attempting to ban bump stocks without a law. We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will right this wrong for Michael Cargill and all Americans. “We're working hard,” Chenoweth said.
Impact: Millions of legal gun owners also owned bump stocks before the ATF rule. Cargill's lawyers said the ATF acknowledged that if the rule were in effect, the loss of property to law-abiding Americans would be more than $100 million.
Free Speech: National Rifle Association vs. Vlo.
Discussion date: Not yet set
problem: Whether a government regulator threatens to take adverse regulatory action if the regulated entity does business with you; controversial speakerThe government's own hostility toward the speaker's views violates the First Amendment.
Case: Maria T. Vullo, former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) superintendent, used the DFS's regulatory powers to financially blacklist the NRA at the behest of then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The company is said to have forced banks and insurance companies to list them. The group says she is severing ties with the association for the purpose of suppressing speech.
discussion: The NRA claims that Mr. Vullo's actions were aimed at silencing the NRA by using “guidance letters” to force financial institutions to “leave” the association, behind-the-scenes threats, and other means. are doing. The NRA's First Amendment claims survived multiple motions to dismiss, but in 2022, the Second Circuit struck them after Vullo appealed the trial court's ruling. . The court has ruled that in an era of “enhanced corporate social responsibility,” New York financial regulators are forcing banks and insurance companies to provide services to gun advocates based on a supposed “social backlash” to gun advocates' claims. The court ruled that it was reasonable to warn the public not to provide such information.
Click here to read more US news
Impact: The NRA claims to support gun rights groups it ideologically opposes, but the unlikely American Civil Liberties Union would agree that its free speech was violated by New York officials. gained a compatriot.
Interference: Fisher v. United States
Discussion date: Not yet set
problem: The Court of Appeal found that the charges in these three cases were permissible based on each appellant's violent conduct on January 6, 2021. Did you judge correctly?
Supporters of then-President Trump occupy the west front of the U.S. Capitol and the inauguration stands on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc, via Getty Images)
Case: More than 300 people were indicted Ministry of Justice Charged with obstructing official proceedings related to the January 6 riot. The lawsuit is contested by three defendants: Garrett Miller of Dallas, Joseph Fisher of Boston, and Edward Jacob Lang of New York's Hudson Valley.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Discussion: A lower court judge earlier dismissed obstruction charges against the three defendants, ruling that their actions did not warrant the charges. But the Biden Justice Department challenged the ruling, and the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals agreed with government prosecutors.
Impact: The outcome of the case could also affect the criminal case against former President Trump, who faces similar obstruction charges.
