Supreme Court Review
University of California, Irvine School of Law
June 30, 2023
Prepared by Shruthi Kumar
This document describes some of the most highly anticipated cases of the Supreme Court this year. The summaries of the cases were directly compiled from the Oyez database of Supreme Court Cases, National Constitution Center, ACLU, and The New York Times. For each of the case summaries, we thank Oyez and the National Constitution Center for their work. You may find more detailed information on each case at the following links: Oyez & National Constitution Center.
Table of Contents
- First Amendment and Religion
- First Amendment and Digital Technology
- Second Amendment
- Native American Civil Rights
- Environmental Protections
- Education, Loans, Affirmative Action
Ⅰ. First Amendment and Religion
From the National Constitution Center: This case concerns Lorie Smith, owner and artist for her own design studio and website 303 Creative. She seeks to start a website business for weddings but refuses to work with same-sex couples, stating it was against her religious beliefs. The Court is considering if a Colorado public-accommodation law violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause if it compels a website artist and designer to serve clients.
From Oyez: Lorie Smith is the owner and founder of a graphic design firm, 303 Creative LLC. She wants to expand her business to include wedding websites. However, she opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds so does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings. She wants to post a message on her own website explaining her religious objections to same-sex weddings. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) prohibits businesses that are open to the public from discriminating on the basis of numerous characteristics, including sexual orientation. The law defines discrimination not only as refusing to provide goods or services, but also publishing any communication that says or implies that an individual’s patronage is unwelcome because of a protected characteristic. Even before the state sought to enforce CADA against her, Smith and her company challenged the law in federal court, alleging numerous constitutional violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the state, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
From the ACLU: The ACLU contends that applying the statute [The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA)] to 303 Creative to require it to provide the same design services to all does not violate the First Amendment. Colorado’s anti-discrimination law does not regulate artists as such, but rather businesses that choose to sell to the public. The law does not treat “expressive” businesses any differently from any other businesses. It is therefore a content-neutral regulation directed at commercial sales conduct and satisfies intermediate scrutiny.[1]
From the National Constitution Center: In this case, the Court will decide what is an “undue hardship” for an employer under the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII, after a postal worker declined to work on Sundays delivering Amazon packages due to his religious beliefs.
From Oyez: Gerald Groff is a Christian and U.S. Postal Service worker. He refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. USPS offered to find employees to swap shifts with him, but on numerous occasions, no co-worker would swap, and Groff did not work. USPS subsequently fired him. Groff sued USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming USPS failed to reasonably accommodate his religion because the shift swaps did not fully eliminate the conflict. The district court concluded the requested accommodation would pose an undue hardship on USPS and granted summary judgment for USPS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.
Ⅱ. First Amendment and Digital Technology Cases
From the National Constitution Center: A case involving numerous messages sent to a Facebook user that were interpreted by their recipient as threatening, leading to the sender’s conviction under a Colorado state stalking law. The court is considering if the sender knew or understood the statements could be interpreted as “true threats” unprotected by the First Amendment, or if a test that a reasonable person would understand the statements as threatening was enough to remove the speaker’s First Amendment protections.
From Oyez: Billy Raymond Counterman repeatedly contacted a person over Facebook in 2014, sending her “creepy” messages from numerous different accounts even after she repeatedly blocked him. Some of the messages implied that Counterman was watching her and saying that he wanted her to die or be killed. She reported Counterman to law enforcement, who arrested him in 2016. He was charged with one count of stalking (credible threat), one count of stalking (serious emotional distress, and one count of harassment; before trial, the prosecution dismissed the count of stalking (credible threat). Counterman claimed that the remaining charges, as applied to his Facebook messages, would violate his right to free speech under the First Amendment because they were not “true threats.” The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, and a jury found him guilty of stalking (serious emotional distress). The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
From the National Constitution Center: In Gonzalez v. Google, the Court considered if the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 allows lawsuits against internet services when algorithmic programs recommend a third party’s content to likely users, or if they can be sued only when engaging in traditional, manual editorial functions.
From Oyez: In Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court took on a similar question about the liability of widely available internet services such as Google’s YouTube service, Facebook, and Twitter under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and if these services can be sued based on the level of activity undertaken by them to detect their use by foreign terrorists such as ISIS. Writing for a unanimous court ruled in Twitter v. Taamneh, Justice Clarence Thomas said that “the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.” After the Twitter decision, the court remanded the Gonzalez v. Google case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration.
Ⅲ. Second Amendment
From The New York Times[2]: Zackey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. His girlfriend obtained a restraining order in response which then suspended Mr. Rahini’s handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms. Mr. Rahini proceeded to defy the order and opened fire in public five times, threatened a different woman with a gun, and carried several charges of assault. The shootings led to a search warrant of Mr. Rahini’s home and several uncovered weapons were found. He was charged with violating the federal law. After a judge rejected his Second Amendment challenge to the law, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to more than six years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at first affirmed his conviction in a short decision, rejecting the argument that the law violated the Second Amendment in a footnote. But the appeals reversed course after the Supreme Court issued a decision last June establishing a new test to decide whether gun control laws are constitutional, one focused on history. This case, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, would give the court a chance to explore the scope of its new test, which requires the government to identify historical analogues to justify laws limiting Second Amendment rights. The court vacated Mr. Rahimi’s conviction under a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic-violence orders to possess guns, ruling that the law violated the Second Amendment.
Next week, the Supreme Court is set to consider whether to hear an appeal of that decision, which applied a history-based test to rule that the government was powerless to disarm Mr. Rahimi under the domestic-violence law.
Ⅳ. Native American Civil Rights
From Oyez: The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law enacted in 1978, restricts the removal of Native American children from their families and establishes a preference that Native children who are removed from their families be placed with extended family members or Native foster homes. Several individuals and states filed a lawsuit challenging the law as violating constitutional anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. The plaintiffs include several couples who wished to adopt or foster Native children, a woman who wished for her Native biological child to be adopted by non-Natives, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana. The district court ruled for the plaintiffs, striking down portions of the ICWA. The defendants appealed, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. In a fractured ruling, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc upheld portions of the district court’s decision and reversed other portions.
From the National Constitution Center: The case centers on a dispute between the Navajo Nation and several states about water rights for the Colorado River. It involves the scope of the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the river’s waters.
From Oyez: In 2003, the Navajo Nation sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and other federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a breach of trust claim for failure to consider their water rights in managing the Colorado River. Arizona, Nevada, and several other entities intervened to protect their interests in the Colorado River waters. The district court dismissed their claim, finding the Supreme Court retained original jurisdiction over allocation of rights to the Colorado River. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Ⅴ. Environmental Protections
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
From the National Constitution Center: In this case, the Court is considering the proper test for determining if wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate wetlands in general. The justices decided the EPA lacked the ability to regulate the petitioners' property. A majority held the legal definition of wetlands is now limited to areas with a continuous surface connection to other waters. Four justices disagreed with the new definition.
From Oyez: Michael and Chantall Sackett own a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, and want to build a home there. However, shortly after they began placing sand and gravel, the federal Environmental Protection Agency told them that they could not build on their lot because construction on the land violated the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, the Sacketts’ lot contained wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” regulated by the Act, so they needed to remove the sand and gravel and restore the property to its natural state. Litigation ensued, and in 2012, the Supreme Court permitted the Sacketts to litigate their challenge to the EPA’s order in federal court. During the litigation, the EPA removed its compliance order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the EPA’s withdrawal of the compliance order did not render the Sacketts’ challenge moot and that the EPA does have jurisdiction over their property under the Clean Water Act. The court reasoned that, under binding circuit precedent, “jurisdiction over wetlands depends upon the existence of a significant nexus between the wetlands in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense.”
Ⅵ. Education, Loans, Affirmative Action
Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown
From the National Constitution Center: These highly publicized cases involve the legality of the Biden administration’s student-debt relief program. Among the questions before the Court are if the respondents have the standing to challenge the program in court; if the Biden administration exceeded power granted to it by lawmakers; and if the Biden administration used the proper procedures to adopt the program.
From Oyez: In 2020, then-presidential candidate Joseph Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. After winning the election, the Biden administration announced its intent to forgive, via executive action, $10,000 in student loans for borrowers with an annual income of less than $125,000. Nebraska and five other states challenged the forgiveness program, arguing that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed the challenge, finding that the states lacked judicial standing to sue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit enjoined the forgiveness program pending the appeal.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
From the National Constitution Center: In these cases, the Court is reviewing its prior precedent, Grutter v. Bollinger, regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education, and if institutions of higher education can still use race as a factor in their student admissions process.
From Oyez: Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard College over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of white applicants. Harvard admits that it uses race as one of many factors in its admissions process but argues that its process adheres to the requirements for race-based admissions outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. After a 15-day bench trial, the district court issued a detailed opinion in favor of Harvard. SFFA appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The case was originally consolidated for oral argument with a similar case challenging the admissions policies at the University of North Carolina under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, but the Court severed the cases.
SFFA sued the University of North Carolina (UNC) over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as a factor in admissions. UNC admits that it uses race as one of many factors in its admissions process but argues that its process adheres to the requirements for race-based admissions outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. After an eight-day bench trial and litigation that spanned nearly seven years, the district court ruled that UNC’s admissions policy survived strict scrutiny and was consistent with Grutter v. Bollinger. SFFA appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed to hold the case in abeyance after the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. The case was originally consolidated for oral argument with a similar case challenging the admissions policies at Harvard University under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the Court subsequently severed the two cases.
[1] 303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis, American Civil Liberties Union, March 17, 2023, https://www.aclu.org/cases/303-creative-inc-v-elenis.
[2] Adam Liptak, Do People Subject To Domestic Abuse Orders Have The Right To Be Armed? NYT, June 12, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/us/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-orders.html#:~:text=The%20case%20started%20in%202019,prohibited%20him%20from%20possessing%20firearms.