The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2024

In a momentous term that ended in July, the Supreme Court issued major victories for former President Donald J. Trump, a sustained attack on the power of administrative agencies and mixed signals on guns and abortion.

No term in recent memory has featured so many major cases, including ones on topics as varied as homelessness, the opioid crisis, voting rights and the environment.

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

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. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the election subversion case against Mr. Trump. The chances that it will go to trial before the election are increasingly slim, and the charges against him, at a minimum, are likely to be narrowed.

Where does the public stand?

Think former presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president

Think former presidents are immune

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Social Media Platforms’ First Amendment Rights

Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton

9-0 ruling on July 1

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?

Think states cannot prevent social media companies from censoring speech

Think states should be able to prevent censoring

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Obstruction Charges for Jan. 6 Assault

Fischer v. United States

6-3 ruling on June 28

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?

Think the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were criminal

Think the events were not criminal

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Power of Federal Agencies

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo; Relentless v. Department of Commerce

6-3 ruling on June 28

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?

Courts should defer to administrative agencies when laws are unclear

Courts should not defer to agencies

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Restrictions on the Homeless

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

6-3 ruling on June 28

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

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.

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?

Think Idaho hospitals must provide abortions in medical emergencies

Think they are not allowed

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Opioids Settlement

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

5-4 ruling on June 27

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?

Think the Sackler family should not keep immunity from future lawsuits

Think family should keep immunity

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Cross-State Air Pollution

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency

5-4 ruling on June 27

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.

Administrative Courts

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

6-3 ruling on June 27

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?

Think federal agencies bringing actions in administrative proceedings rather than in federal courts is not constitutional

Think it is constitutional

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Disinformation on Social Media

Murthy v. Missouri

6-3 ruling on June 26

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 Ba ntam 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?

Think federal officials urging private companies to block or remove users violates the First Amendment

Think it does not violate the First Amendment

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Second Amendment Rights of Domestic Abusers

United States v. Rahimi

8-1 ruling on June 21

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?

Think barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms does not violate their Second Amendment rights

Think it violates their rights

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Bump Stocks for Guns

Garland v. Cargill

6-3 ruling on June 14

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.

Abortion Pills

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

9-0 ruling on June 13

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 abortio n 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?

Think the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone should not be revoked

Think the approval should be revoked

Source: SCOTUSPoll

N.R.A. and the First Amendment

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

9-0 ruling on May 30

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

Racial Gerrymandering

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P.

6-3 ruling on May 23

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 lower-court ruling that said the map resulted in the “bleaching of African American voters” from a district.

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?

Think these changes to the districts are unconstitutional

Think they are constitutional

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Agency Funding

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America

7-2 ruling on May 16

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?

Think this agency funding structure is unconstitutional

Think it is constitutional

Source: SCOTUSPoll

Trump’s Ballot Eligibility

Trump v. Anderson

9-0 ruling on March 4

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?

Think Trump is eligible to run in 2024

Think Trump is not eligible

Source: SCOTUSPoll

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.

Immunity for Former Presidents

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

To Justify His Immunity Defense, Trump Flips the Prosecution Script

Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction

Social Media Platforms’ First Amendment Rights

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment Applies to Social Media

Obstruction Charges for Jan. 6 Assault

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

Supreme Court’s Review of Jan. 6 Charge Has Already Freed Some Rioters

Power of Federal Agencies

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

A Fight Over a Fishing Regulation Could Help Tear Down the Administrative State

A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

Restrictions on the Homeless

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

The Town at the Center of a Supreme Court Battle Over Homelessness

Homelessness Case Draws Unusual Alliances: Conservatives and California Democrats

Emergency Abortion Care

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

What to Know About the Federal Law at the Heart of the Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case

Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

Opioids Settlement

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

Judge Overturns Purdue Pharma’s Opioid Settlement

Fate of Billions for Opioid Victims From Sacklers Rests With Supreme Court

Cross-State Air Pollution

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

More on the issue

E.P.A. Tells Dozens of States to Clean Up Their Smokestacks

Administrative Courts

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

Supreme Court Seems Wary of In-House S.E.C. Tribunals

Disinformation on Social Media

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue

Ruling Puts Social Media at Crossroads of Disinformation and Free Speech

Second Amendment Rights of Domestic Abusers

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject?

What was at stake?

Where does the public stand?

More on the issue