Explainer: 2022 - 2023 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Landmark Cases
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, with ultimate appellate jurisdiction (the official power to make legal decisions or judgments) over all federal cases, and state cases that involve points in the Constitution or federal law.
During the 2022 - 2023 U.S. Supreme Court term, the Court heard many cases around constitutional rights, state sovereignty, and the United States government's powers. This term had many landmark cases that will affect the rights of everyone in the country in significant and small ways. This article briefly goes over the cases and their impact.
Please note that this is a partial list of all the cases during the 2022 - 2023 term, and more will be added in the next couple of days. Read about the rest of the cases from this term here.
Got false info you want to share with us or something to fact-check?
Moore v. Harper
Summary:
Back in 2021, the North Carolina legislature passed a congressional map that Democrats considered to be heavily gerrymandered and partisan, awarding 10 of the 14 available congressional seats in the state to Republicans. Previously, the Supreme Court had ruled that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases, so voters contested the congressional map in state courts, arguing that the map violated the North Carolina Constitution’s “free elections clause.” In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map, calling it an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander.” The Supreme Court was asked to review the case, and in doing so, the “independent state legislature theory”. (Moore v. Harper, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice) (Moore v. Harper - Ballotpedia)
Question:
Do state courts have the power to supervise how state legislatures run federal elections (specifically for Congress or the Presidency)? (Moore v. Harper - Ballotpedia)
Decision:
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled that while state legislatures have the constitutional power to regulate federal elections, state courts can oversee the process and provide a “check” on that power.
Implications:
SCOTUS’ decision affirmed that state courts have the power to oversee state legislatures concerning federal elections via the checks and balances function, allowing another avenue to protect voting rights across the country. In protecting the separation of powers, the ruling also provides further protections against gerrymandering, which is the manipulation of electoral boundaries to favor one party, and provides some stability for the 2024 elections. (9 Ways the Supreme Court’s Decision in Moore v. Harper Could Harm Democracy - Center for American Progress)
Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Summary:
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a membership organization for students who believe they have been discriminated against in the college admissions process, sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) for allegedly discriminating against Asian American and white students. After lower courts upheld Harvard and UNC’s use of race-conscious admissions, SFFA appealed the cases for review by the Supreme Court.
Question:
Can higher education institutions use race as a factor in their admissions process?
If yes, does Harvard College’s race-conscious process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Decision:
In a 6-2 decision in the Harvard case (Justice Jackson excused herself from the case as she is an alum of Harvard) and a 6-3 decision in the UNC case, the Court ruled that race should not be a conscious factor in the admissions process for colleges, through an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, essentially banning Affirmative Action in both public and private higher education institutions, except military schools. The dissent reasoned that equal protection involves recognition of history and its influence on the unequal opportunities and outcomes of different racial groups that still exist today.
Implications:
Colleges across the country will have to re-evaluate their admissions process moving forward. Justice Roberts points out that this decision does not prevent institutions from “considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.” Graduate education, including medical, law, and professional programs, will likely also be bound by the ruling.
There is a caveat in the decision saying that it does not apply to the military academies because they present a unique setting in which affirmative action could be of national interest.
Schools may try different tactics to maintain the diversity of their classes, including increased recruitment from underrepresented communities, programs for acceptance based on zip code, and emphasis on socioeconomic metrics, to name a few. In a brief to the court, fifteen prominent universities argued that racial diversity on their campuses would decrease if this decision came to pass, a harm that may prove to be irreversible.
The ruling might also affect how companies and organizations use diversity, inclusion, and equity programs in hiring/promoting employees in the future.
Biden v. Nebraska
Summary:
Joe Biden pledged to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower during his presidential campaign. After taking office, the Biden administration planned to forgive $10,000 in student loans through executive action for borrowers with an annual income below $125,000. However, 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 due to the lack of judicial standing, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an injunction to halt the forgiveness program pending the appeal. (Biden v. Nebraska | Oyez)
Question:
Do Nebraska and other states have judicial standing to challenge the student-debt relief program?
Does the student-debt relief program exceed the statutory authority of the U.S. Secretary of Education, or does it violate the Administrative Procedure Act? (Biden v. Nebraska | Oyez)
Decision:
Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, which ruled that the Secretary of Education exceeded their authority in a plan to cancel a significant amount of federal student loan debt. The Court found that the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act) allows for modest adjustments to loan provisions but does not permit the Secretary to rewrite the Education Act to the extent of canceling billions of dollars in student loan principal. The Court emphasized that Congress, not the Secretary of Education, should make such consequential decisions regarding mass debt cancellation. (Biden v. Nebraska | Justia)
Implications:
Future proposals for widespread student loan debt forgiveness would have to go through the legislative process and potentially face more complex political considerations. This cannot be done solely through executive action by the Secretary of Education. Student loan borrowers who were hoping for widespread debt forgiveness through administrative measures will not see their loans canceled through any such means.
Department of Education v. Brown
Summary:
Before the resumption of federal student-loan repayments that had been suspended during the coronavirus pandemic, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona invoked the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act) on Sept. 27, 2022, which would discharge $10,000-$20,000 of an eligible borrower’s debt. Before the plan was enacted, two particular borrowers — Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor — sued to stop it. For different reasons, the duo do not qualify for maximum relief under the plan. They argued that the Department of Education publicized the plan without following mandatory procedures, known as negotiated rulemaking and notice and comment.
Question:
Is the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program unconstitutional? (Department of Education v. Brown | Oyez)
Decision:
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents lacked standing to bring forward their claim and unanimously dismissed the case. (Department of Education v. Brown | Justia) Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court, which stated that because respondents failed to establish that any injury they suffered from not having their loans forgiven was fairly traceable to the Plan, they lacked standing to challenge the lawfulness of the loan forgiveness plan, so the Court has no jurisdiction to address their procedural claim.
Implications:
The ruling set a clear precedent for cases that need substantial standing to be heard. This case brings to attention the fact that the Secretary of Education cannot singlehandedly enact widespread student loan forgiveness and that a plan of that magnanimity must go through the appropriate legislative process.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Summary:
Lorie Smith, the owner of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC, wanted to expand her business by creating wedding websites. However, she did not want to create websites for same-sex weddings as they went against her religious beliefs, and she wanted to publicize this message on her own website. Fearing that the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) might be used against her by the state of Colorado, Smith and her company challenged the law in federal court.
Question:
Does the application of the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | Oyez)
Decision:
In a 6-3 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Smith may refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples, holding that requiring her to do so under CADA would violate her free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Implications:
The ruling potentially opens up a dangerous loophole in civil rights protections, creating exceptions to protections against discrimination in public accommodations. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis opens up policies to reinterpretation by courts and essentially allows businesses to refuse service to LGBTQ+ individuals without repercussions on the basis of discrimination.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Summary:
In April and May of 2007, Chantell and Mike Sackett filled in about one-half acre of land they owned in preparation to build a house on the property. In November 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a compliance order against the Sacketts, claiming that the Sacketts violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because the land they filled in was allegedly a protected wetland.
The Sacketts sought a hearing with the EPA to discuss the issue, and after being denied a hearing, filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho seeking injunctive and declaratory relief (requesting the EPA pay for monetary damages). The district court granted the EPA’s motion to dismiss, ruling that CWA inhibits judicial review of compliance orders. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. (Sackett v. EPA | Oyez)
During litigation, the EPA withdrew the compliance order but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asserted that the EPA does have jurisdiction over the Sackett’s property because of Clean Water Act, reasoning that jurisdiction depends on the connection of the wetlands to larger, navigable bodies of water. (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | Oyez)
Question:
What is the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act? (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | Oyez)
Decision:
In a 5 - 4 decision, the Court ruled that the Clean Water Act’s definition of “waters” only involves “relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water” i.e. lakes, rivers, oceans, etc. and that wetlands are not technically “waters of the United States” unless they have a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters.
Justice Kavanaugh joined Justices Sotomayer, Jackson, and Kagan in the dissent, arguing that the Court’s decision disgards 45 years of consistent EPA practices and the Court’s own precedents (previous decisions). Justice Kagan, joined by Sotomayer and Jackson, claims that the Court is substituting its own ideas for Congressional policymaking. (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | Oyez)
Implications:
The Court’s decision significantly narrows the scope of the Clean Water Act and limits the power of the EPA to regulate waters in the country, which could affect water quality and flood control capabilities of the agency across the United States. Other climate experts argue the decision could curb efforts to combat climate change and protect the environment, especially as wetlands are already diminishing across the country. (The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act)
