Court End Review
This week, the Supreme Court delivered the final batch of cases for the 2023-2024 term. This term, the Court heard 62 cases, compared to 60 last year and 68 the year before that. The Court decided many significant cases this term such as abortion-adjacent matters, The Chevron Doctrine, and presidential immunity, among others.
These decisions come at a critical time because the Court cannot appear political. An April 2024 Marquette Law School survey found that only 47% of adults approve of the Court’s performance. This marks an improvement from the Court’s 38% approval rating following its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. It still reflects significant public skepticism.
Although the number of unanimous opinions this term remained relatively stable, the perception of the Court as a political entity persists. Many of the most consequential cases were decided along political lines, with about 20% of cases this term resolved on ideological grounds. This is a 50% increase from last year, further fueling concerns about the Court’s impartiality.
The following three cases highlight significant legal questions but also underscore the ideological divide that continues to shape recent decisions.
Trump v. United States: Decided 6-3
One of the highly anticipated cases this term was Trump v. United States. This case addressed whether a former president possesses criminal immunity for actions taken while in office, and if yes, to what degree. The facts arose from Special Counsel Jack White’s indictments against former President Trump concerning his actions on January 6, 2021.
The Court ruled that a president cannot be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers. The Court established three categories of presidential acts and determined the types of protections those acts enjoy. First, the president has absolute immunity for all constitutional actions. Second, the president has presumptive immunity for official actions unless this presumption is overcome by the prosecution. Finally, the president has no immunity for unofficial actions. The case was ultimately remanded to the lower courts so they could classify Trumps actions.
This ruling significantly increased the power of the presidency by asserting that certain presidential conduct is beyond the reach of legal checks. For example, under this framework, if President Nixon had engaged in illegal or conspiratorial conversations with John Mitchell during the Watergate scandal, such actions would fall outside the check of the law because talking to Attorney Generals fall under constitutional actions. Similarly, if a president orders a military operation like ordering Seal Team Six to murder a political opponent, it would be immunized because the role of Commander-in-Chief is a constitutionally permitted action of the president.
The Court’s decision asserts that the motives of the president cannot be interrogated; instead, one must look at the actions and determine which of the three established categories they fall into.
The expansion of presidential power to this extent undermines the essential system of checks and balances that underpins our democracy. This decision appears politically motivated, as it clearly favors Trump while neglecting the implications for future presidents unchecked abuse of power. By ignoring these broader consequences, the Court’s ruling appears to be a partisan move rather than a principled legal judgment.
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo; Relentless v Department of Commerce: Decided 6-3
Another important question this term was the extent to which the Court would undermine the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless v Department of Commerce. The facts of the cases are not really important to this discussion but note that overturning Chevron has been a long-term goal of businesses and conservatives. They believe the administrative state has grown too large and imposes excessive regulations. They argue that their cases would be more successful if decided by the courts rather than by regulatory agencies.
The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, asserted that when a court faces a challenge to an agency regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, the court must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the regulation.
The Court eliminated the Chevron precedent. The Court ruled that when a congressional statute is ambiguous, no deference should be given to an agency to determine how to execute the law. Instead, as the great Chief Justice John Marshall declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Court argued that federal agencies lack the expertise to interpret laws, which is a judicial function. Additionally, the Court held that the Chevron doctrine was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Chevron’s impact on numerous federal agencies is profound because congressional laws often lack the foresight to address specific future scenarios. As one of the most cited judicial cases, Chevron’s reversal raises concerns that businesses will exploit ambiguities to circumvent regulations enacted by agencies. This will undermine regulatory oversight, allowing businesses to operate unchecked. While courts excel in legal interpretation, they lack the nuanced expertise of scientists and civil servants who implement and enforce the regulations on the ground.
Moyle v United States: Decided 6-3
In Moyle v. Idaho, the Supreme Court faced a challenge to an Idaho law. The law restricted abortions to situations only where necessary to prevent the death of the mother, providing no exceptions for other serious medical complications. Before the law could take effect, the government argued that it was too narrow and violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which states hospitals must provide care to patients in medical emergencies and preventing woman from obtaining abortions to avoid serious health harms (not just death) violates the law. The government obtained an injunction against the law.
The Court granted certiorari to review the case. While the case was before the Court, the injunction was stayed which allowed Idaho to enforce the ban preventing women from obtaining abortions necessary to prevent serious health harms.
Ultimately, the Court found that certiorari was improperly granted and dismissed the case. This reinstated the government’s injunction, meaning Idaho’s law cannot be enforced.
Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion questioning why the Court had granted certiorari in the first place. She argued that Idaho’s challenge did not warrant review, and by doing so, the Court jeopardized women’s health by delaying access to necessary medical care.
Importantly, the Court’s dismissal means it did not address whether Idaho’s law violated EMTALA. This leaves open the possibility that the issue could be revisited in the future, potentially allowing similar laws in other states.
The conservative majority on the Court kicked the can down the road. They avoided addressing the issue to sidestep political controversy, especially during this general election year. When the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Republicans faced large electoral losses. This highlighted the public preference for abortion rights. Polls show that a significant majority of Americans, 64%, believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, with 85% supporting legality in at least some situations. Only a small minority, 9%, believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, aligning with the views of Idaho’s restrictive law and the conservative justices.
Post Mortem
This term many politically significant rulings aligned with the preferences of former President Trump, and the conservatives. The Courts continued overturning of precedents to favor the conservative have transformed the Supreme Court into another political actor, further eroding its legitimacy.
These decisions have profound implications across various realms. The Court’s decision on presidential immunity redefines the boundaries of executive power, influencing future administrations and the federal government’s balance of power. Additionally, the death of the Chevron opens the gate to businesses violating federal agencies’ regulations by reducing the deference previously given to agency interpretations. Finally, the Moyle case has introduced new complexities and potential challenges to reproductive rights.
The Supreme Court faces the challenge of rebuilding public trust amidst a complex and contentious American environment. I am not optimistic that the upcoming terms will be ones where the Court restores its reputation as an impartial arbiter of justice. It will continue to be perceived through a partisan lens, further challenging its credibility.