{"id":2251931,"date":"2024-05-24T07:33:02","date_gmt":"2024-05-24T11:33:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-most-anticipated-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-in-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-05-24T07:40:35","modified_gmt":"2024-05-24T11:40:35","slug":"the-most-anticipated-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-in-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-most-anticipated-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-in-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Exciting Supreme Court Rulings to Expect in 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fthe-most-anticipated-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-in-2024%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2251931&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The \u2062Supreme Court faces critical decisions on various pressing issues, from homelessness ordinances to social media regulations. Cases involve debates on constitutional rights, government powers, and public policy implications on controversial topics like opioid settlements and the limits of agency\u2064 interpretations. Stay \u200binformed on the outcomes that will shape legal landscapes. Stay updated on the Supreme \u2062Court&#8217;s pivotal rulings addressing crucial matters\u200b such \u200cas homelessness laws, social \u2063media policies, constitutional rights, government authority, opioid settlements, and regulatory boundaries. These decisions hold significant implications for legal frameworks and societal dynamics, shaping the future legal landscape.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Supreme Court<\/a> will soon unveil the final decisions from this term in the most consequential cases it heard over the past seven months that will define precedent for the years to come.<\/p>\n<p>Three cases involve former President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Donald Trump<\/a>, two concern <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/abortion\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>abortion<\/a>, two focus on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/gun-control\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>gun rights<\/a>, three tackle <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/first-amendment\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>First Amendment<\/a> issues for social media, and three address key questions about the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/833847\/due-deference-the-supreme-court-will-scrutinize-officials-power-to-impose-regulations\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>administrative state<\/a>. All of the decisions are expected by the end of June.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>The empty courtroom is seen at the Supreme Court in Washington as the justices prepare final decisions of the high court\u2019s term, Monday, June 24, 2019. (AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The Supreme Court has yet to write the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/2979689\/gorsuch-supreme-court-trump-immunity-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>\u201crule for the ages\u201d<\/a> on whether former presidents enjoy some immunity from prosecution, and justices have also so far held off on major decisions that have the potential to limit the powers of federal agencies sharply. <\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s what to know about the major cases that are still awaiting decisions:<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Immunity for former presidents<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Trump v. United States<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether Trump is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/2978885\/supreme-court-open-middle-ground-trump-immunity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>immune from prosecution<\/a> related to allegedly subverting the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> If Trump wins complete immunity, it would bring an end to the 2020 election subversion indictment in Washington, D.C. If the Supreme Court sides with special counsel Jack Smith, who has won the immunity argument in two lower courts, the proceedings could resume. The justices signaled they could send the case back to lower courts for further fact finding as to what actions may or may not be protected.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Precedents<\/strong>: <em>United States v. Nixon<\/em> (1974) &#038; <em>Nixon v. Fitzgerald<\/em> (1982).<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>Special Counsel Jack Smith and former President Donald Trump. (AP Photos\/J. Scott Applewhite\/Paul Sancya)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Obstruction charges for Jan. 6 defendants<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Fischer v. United States<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether federal prosecutors <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2960959\/riot-revisited-biden-doj-supreme-court-fight-trump-jan-6-cases\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"properly charges hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants\">properly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants<\/a>, including Trump, using a law that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding. The proceeding prosecutors point to is the disruption of the congressional certification of Biden\u2019s 2020 election victory on Jan. 6, 2021.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters<\/strong>: A ruling against the Justice Department could affect half of the charges against Trump and the cases of hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, and it has the chance to result in numerous revised sentences for already-convicted defendants. <\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>On Jan. 7, 2021, Joseph Fischer posted the following photos of himself to Facebook that appear to have been taken at the \u201cStop the Steal\u201d rally. (Source: FBI affidavit)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Abortion pills<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2938681\/supreme-court-appears-skeptical-scope-abortion-pill-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>to overturn Food and Drug Administration guidelines<\/a> for distributing an abortion pill by mail and telemedicine.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The case is one of two focused on abortion after the Supreme Court gave states broader abilities to restrict abortion access in 2022. The case will determine whether mail-in access to the common abortion drug can be curtailed.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>Staff with the group Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, Kristin Turner, of San Francisco, left, Lauren Handy, of Washington, and Caroline Smith, of Washington, right, demonstrate against abortion pills outside of the Supreme Court, Friday, April 21, 2023, ahead of an abortion pill announcement by the court in Washington. (AP Photo\/Jacquelyn Martin)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Emergency abortion care<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Cases: <\/strong><em>Idaho v. United States<\/em>; <em>Moyle v. United States<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether federal law mandating emergency stabilizing care <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/policy\/healthcare\/2977766\/justices-appear-evenly-divided-in-controversial-emergency-abortion-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>overrides Idaho\u2019s near-total abortion<\/a> ban. The case came before the Supreme Court following Idaho\u2019s appeal of an injunction placed on the state\u2019s anti-abortion statute from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Idaho\u2019s case in January, it overrode the lower body\u2019s injunction, allowing the state\u2019s abortion ban to take effect until a final decision is made in June.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The Supreme Court\u2019s impending decision in the case could have significant implications for the 2024 elections, in which abortion is a leading concern among a sizable majority of voters. The justices appeared evenly divided during oral arguments.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Second Amendment rights of domestic abusers<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Rahimi v. United States<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether banning firearm possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The court could clear up confusion created by its prior 2022 Second Amendment decision, which set a test that courts must now follow to ensure that gun regulations are congruent with the nation\u2019s history and tradition of firearms law. Lower courts have struggled with the new precedent, which requires deeper historical fact-finding.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key precedent<\/strong>: <em>New York State Rifle &#038; Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em><\/p>\n<h2><strong>Municipality rights to ban homeless encampments<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>City of Grants Pass v. Johnson<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether Oregon\u2019s ordinances against outdoor sleeping and camping <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2974640\/justices-seem-take-city-side-homeless-encampment-regulation\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>violate the Eighth Amendment<\/a> protections against cruel and unusual punishment.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The case examines the overlapping laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, which outlawed sleeping and camping in public places. A pair of homeless people sued the city, claiming the law violated their Eighth Amendment protections from \u201ccruel and unusual\u201d punishment. Typically, the Eighth Amendment is invoked to protect against punishments, not laws.\u00a0The justices seemed open to taking the city\u2019s side.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>A jogger runs past a homeless encampment in the Venice Beach section of Los Angeles on June 8, 2021. (AP Photo \/ Marcio Jose Sanchez)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Social media platforms\u2019 First Amendment rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Cases<\/strong>: <em>Moody v. NetChoice<\/em>; <em>NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether Florida and Texas can <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/policy\/technology\/2886025\/supreme-court-appears-skeptical-gop-states-major-internet-free-speech-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/senators-confront-paypal-on-misinformation-policy-highlighted-by-daily-wire-report\/\" title=\"Senators Confront PayPal On \u2018Misinformation\u2019 Policy Highlighted By Daily Wire Report\">stop social media companies<\/a><\/a> from removing posts based on their views.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The court appears divided on the extent to which content moderation should be allowed. On the one hand, they saw government-enforced moderation as questionable, particularly if it focused on content. On the other hand, they criticized the power exerted by Big Tech companies. <\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>FILE \u2013 This combination of photos shows logos of X, formerly known as Twitter, top left; Snapchat, top right; Facebook, bottom left; and TikTok, bottom right. Social media companies collectively made over $11 billion in U.S. advertising revenue from minors last year, according to a study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health released Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2023. (AP Photo, File)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Disinformation on social media<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Murthy v. Missouri<\/em> (formerly <em>Biden v. Missouri<\/em>)<\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether the Biden administration\u2019s efforts to counter misinformation <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/2925194\/supreme-court-split-government-contact-social-media-censorship\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>amounts to censorship<\/a>, and whether state and individual plaintiffs have standing to bring a lawsuit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The case centers on a high-profile <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/461165\/karine-jean-pierre-mayorkas-among-40-biden-officials-hit-with-big-tech-court-order\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri, and other parties<\/a> accusing officials in the Biden administration of relying on social media platforms to censor online viewpoints unconstitutionally, including conservative ideas and online posts about COVID-19.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>NRA\u2019s First Amendment<\/strong> <strong>rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether New York officials violated the First Amendment by discouraging business with the National Rifle Association.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The NRA is suing former New York State Department of Financial Services superintendent Maria Vullo, who the group alleges used her regulatory power to punish the group economically for its pro-gun stance in violation of the First Amendment.\u00a0The justices seemed open to the NRA\u2019s claims during oral arguments in March.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>FILE \u2013 National Rifle Association members listen to speakers during the NRA\u2019s Annual Meetings and Exhibits at the George R. Brown Convention Center, May 4, 2013, in Houston. (Johnny Hanson\/Houston Chronicle via AP, File)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Opioids settlement<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>Harrington v. Purdue Pharma<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2636189\/legality-of-sackler-familys-6-billion-opioid-settlement-plan-faces-supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Whether a bankruptcy<\/a> settlement shielding the Sackler family from liability in exchange for billions to fight the opioid crisis is legal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The Sackler family members who own Purdue Pharma have offered $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging they fueled the opioid epidemic. The legality of the settlement is under scrutiny by the U.S. Trustee Program, which argues it allows the Sackler family members to evade accountability. But if the justices allow the deal to go forward, it will transform Purdue into a nonprofit organization and dedicate its billions of dollars to addiction and other treatment efforts while releasing the Sackler family owners from future civil liability.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Power of federal agencies<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Cases<\/strong>: <em>Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/em>; <em>Relentless v. Department of Commerce<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether to overrule a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2801169\/conservative-supreme-court-majority-diminishing-agency-power\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>long-standing precedent that tells courts to defer to agency interpretations<\/a> when a law or statute is otherwise ambiguous. The case challenges a precedent known as the <em>Chevron<\/em> doctrine.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> <em>Chevron<\/em> has been cited by the Supreme Court in major cases more than 70 times but has not been relied upon since 2016. Some conservative groups interested in the outcome say the power of the administrative state is too broad and that discretion by agencies leads to overregulation in areas including the workplace, public health, financial markets, and the environment.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key precedent<\/strong>: <em>Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council<\/em> (1984)<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>A group of New England Fishermen Stewardship Association stand outside the Supreme Court calling on the justices to bar the government from forcing them to pay for at-sea herring monitors aboard their vessels. (Kaelan Deese)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Administrative courts<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s in-house administrative courts are legal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> Critics of the commission\u2019s powers, such as hedge fund manager George Jarkesy, argue the authority of administrative law judges creates an unfair advantage in favor of the SEC\u2019s position against people it targets for fines. The justices could pare back the SEC\u2019s powers to conduct in-house adjudications without juries.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Cross-state air pollution<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether to stop Biden\u2019s plan requiring Western and Midwestern factories to reduce air pollution affecting Eastern states.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The nine justices are tasked with deciding whether to block the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/epa\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Environmental Protection Agency<\/a>\u2018s regulatory <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/?p=916777\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u201cgood neighbor\u201d<\/a> plan, which places strict emission limits on power plants and other industries in \u201cupwind states.\u201d Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia filed an emergency request with the high court in October 2023, saying the EPA overstepped its authority by imposing those requirements.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>From a farm field near Shoreham, Vermont, International Paper\u2019s Ticonderoga, New York, mill across Lake Champlain. (AP Photo\/Todd Bissonette)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Bump stocks for guns<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Garland v. Cargill<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether the former Trump administration\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/federal-court-places-trumps-bump-stock-ban-on-hold\/\" title=\"Federal Court Places Trump\u2019s Bump Stock Ban On Hold\">bump stock ban<\/a> was lawful.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The case is one of statutory interpretation, not of the Second Amendment. Did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives properly interpret a law banning machine guns when it extended the law to include a ban on bump stocks? The rule went into effect in 2019, forcing bump stock owners to surrender their devices or else face stiff fees and a felony carrying up to 10 years in prison.<\/p>\n<h2>Here are the major cases that have been decided:<\/h2>\n<h2><strong>Agency funding<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong> The lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was brought by key players in the payday lending industry who say the CFPB is unconstitutionally funded by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/federal-reserve\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Federal Reserve<\/a> because most <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-weighs-cfpb-legality-in-case-challenging-funding-of-financial-watchdog\/\" title=\"Supreme Court considers CFPB's legality in funding dispute.\">federal agencies receive appropriations<\/a> from Congress.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ruling<\/strong>: The court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3006223\/supreme-court-upholds-cfpb-funding\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>ruled 7-2<\/a> that Congress\u2019s funding method for the consumer watchdog via direct routing from the Federal Reserve doesn\u2019t violate the appropriations clause.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters<\/strong>: Although the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests groups supported the payday lenders, mortgage bankers and other sectors under CFPB regulation warned an inverse ruling could unsettle the markets.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>A \u201cPayday Loans\u201d sign is displayed at a Check\u2019n Go in Niles, Illinois, Sunday, July 11, 2021. (AP Photo\/Nam Y. Huh)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Trump\u2019s ballot eligibility<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Trump v. Anderson<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong> Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, faced an onslaught of state-level lawsuits that sought to ban him from the ballot for his 2020 election denial and alleged attempts to overturn the election results.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ruling<\/strong>: The court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2900799\/supreme-court-keeps-trump-on-2024-presidential-ballots\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>ruled 9-0<\/a> that states can\u2019t bar Trump from running for another term.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters<\/strong>: The justices intervened after the Colorado Supreme Court became the first to remove Trump from the state\u2019s ballot. The Supreme Court set a standard for the rest of the nation as other states considered advancing challenges similar to the one in Colorado.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold speaks in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo\/Manuel Balce Ceneta)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Public officials blocking critics<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Cases:<\/strong> <em>Lindke v. Freed<\/em>; <em>O\u2019Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong> Can a public official be sued by a constituent the official has blocked on a government social media account?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ruling:<\/strong> The court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/policy\/technology\/2922437\/supreme-court-sets-criteria-for-government-officials-blocking-users-on-social-media\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"ruled 9-0\">ruled 9-0<\/a> that public officials blocking users on social media only violates the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/constitution\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">First Amendment<\/a> when the officials claim to be posting on the government\u2019s behalf. It set a test that speech is attributable to the State \u201conly if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State\u2019s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The question of whether officials should consider blocking users a First Amendment violation initially arose due to former President Donald Trump, but the case was not taken up due to the court considering it after Trump left office.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Employment discrimination<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case:<\/strong> <em>Muldrow v. St. Louis<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue:<\/strong> Whether <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/title-vii\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Title VII<\/a> requires an employee who has been transferred to a new job to prove in court that he or she has experienced a significant disadvantage, such as harm to his or her career or a change in salary or rank.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ruling:<\/strong> The court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/2969093\/supreme-court-unanimously-opens-door-more-workplace-bias-claims\/\">ruled 9-0<\/a> to make it easier for workers to pursue employment discrimination claims over job transfers in ruling on a case involving a St. Louis policewoman who said she was reassigned due to sex <a href=\"https:\/\/washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/discrimination\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">discrimination<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> Although the judgment was unanimous, three Republican-appointed justices \u2014 Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh \u2014 wrote separate concurrences to explain how they came to the full judgment. Thomas said there was \u201clittle practical difference\u201d between the new test and the standard application of Title VII by appeals court judges.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Gerrymandering<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case<\/strong>: <em>Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue<\/strong>: Whether a South Carolina voting map is an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/desantis-blocks-congressional-maps-passed-by-fellow-republicans\/\" title=\"DeSantis Blocks Congressional Maps Passed By Fellow Republicans\">unconstitutional racial gerrymander<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ruling:<\/strong> The court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3014615\/supreme-court-backs-gop-drawn-south-carolina-congressional-map\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>ruled 6-3<\/a> that South Carolina can use a congressional map drawn by the GOP-led state legislature that a lower court said wrongly \u201cexiled\u201d black voters. The Republican-appointed majority on the court held that the challenges had not proved the lines were motivated by race, but rather they were prompted by partisan politics.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it matters:<\/strong> The Supreme Court held arguments in the case on Oct. 11 but held out on a decision until May 23, past the state\u2019s April primary election race. The delay prompted the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-announces-new-legal-team-for-impeachment-defense-after-previous-team-collapsed\/\" title=\"Trump Announces New Legal Team For Impeachment Defense After Previous Team Collapsed\">federal district court<\/a> that ruled the Charleston-area district was racially gerrymandered to order that very map to be used in the 2024 election. The lower court order saves Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) from heading into the November election with an alternative map that may have been more favorable to Democrats.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>FILE \u2013 State Sen. Dick Harpootlian compares his proposed map of U.S. House districts drawn with 2020 U.S. Census data to a plan supported by Republicans on Jan. 20, 2022, in Columbia, South Carolina. (AP Photo\/Jeffrey Collins)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><strong>Key cases and rulings<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>\u2022 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3006223\/supreme-court-upholds-cfpb-funding\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Agency funding<\/a><\/strong>: 7-2 ruling<\/p>\n<p>\u2022<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2900799\/supreme-court-keeps-trump-on-2024-presidential-ballots\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\" Trump\u2019s Ballot Eligibility\"> <strong>Trump\u2019s ballot eligibility<\/strong><\/a>: 9-0 ruling<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/policy\/technology\/2922437\/supreme-court-sets-criteria-for-government-officials-blocking-users-on-social-media\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Public Officials Blocking Critics\">Public officials blocking critics<\/a><\/strong>: 9-0 ruling<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/2969093\/supreme-court-unanimously-opens-door-more-workplace-bias-claims\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Employment discrimination<\/a>: <\/strong>9-0 ruling<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Presidential immunity<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Jan. 6 obstruction charges<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong><strong>Abortion pills<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Emergency abortion care<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Ban on homeless encampments<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Rights of social media platforms<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Social media<\/strong> <strong>and disinformation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>NRA and the First Amendment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Opioid settlement<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3014615\/supreme-court-backs-gop-drawn-south-carolina-congressional-map\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"South Carolina racial gerrymandering\">South Carolina racial gerrymandering<\/a><\/strong>: 6-3 ruling<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Power of federal agencies<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Administrative courts<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Cross-state air pollution<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2022 <strong>Trump-era bump stock ban<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Last updated May 24.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Get ready for the Supreme Court&#8217;s impactful rulings on key cases heard over the past months, shaping future precedents. Cases include those related to former President Donald Trump, abortion, gun rights, and First Amendment challenges. Stay tuned for the decisions that will set the tone for upcoming years<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2251932,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/AP24116690569905-1-1024x683.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[538],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2251931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/AP24116690569905-1-1024x683.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2251931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2251931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2251931\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2251932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2251931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2251931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2251931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}