Explainer: 2022 - 2023 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
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 our article on landmark (i.e. pivotal) cases from this past term here.
Got false info you want to share with us or something to fact-check?
United States v. Hansen
Summary:
Helaman Hansen ran an “immigration-advising” service that gave false information and advice on achieving citizenship, encouraging noncitizens to enter and remain in the United States illegally. The federal government charged Hansen with encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain. (United States v. Hansen | Oyez) Hansen appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that immigration law does infringe on the First Amendment and the right to free speech.
Question:
Does the federal immigration law prohibiting encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for financial gain violate the First Amendment right to free speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution? (United States v. Hansen | Oyez)
Decision:
In a 7-2 decision in favor of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision, ruling that Title 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) was not “unconstitutionally overbroad,” meaning it did not violate the First Amendment, but only prohibited intentional acts of soliciting or facilitating unlawful immigration. (United States v. Hansen - Ballotpedia)
Implications:
While the Supreme Court argues that the above-mentioned clause does not breach on a substantial amount of protected speech, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the case could have undue effects on freedom of speech outside of just immigration, i.e. encouraging peaceful civil disobedience and protest. (United States v. Helaman Hansen | American Civil Liberties Union)
Counterman v. Colorado
Summary:
Billy Raymond Counterman was charged with one count of stalking (credible threat), one count of stalking (serious emotional distress), and one count of harassment after sending disturbing messages to someone on Facebook in 2014. The prosecution eventually dropped the stalking (credible threat) charge but Counterman argued the remaining charges violated his First Amendment right to free speech as they weren’t “true threats.” The trial court found him guilty of stalking and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, determining that an objective test on the threatening nature of a statement is enough to regard a statement as a “true threat.” (Counterman v. Colorado | Oyez) (Counterman v. Colorado - Ballotpedia)
Question:
Does the government need to show the subject knew or intended for a statement to be threatening to establish the statement as a “true threat?” (Counterman v. Colorado | Oyez)
Decision:
In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the Colorado courts applied the wrong test in determining whether Counterman’s statements were “true threats.” The Court ruled the lower courts should have applied a “recklessness standard” to the case, which would require the state to prove the speaker (in this case, Counterman) is aware that others would consider a statement to be threatening (regarding his statements to the victim). The case was sent back to the lower courts, potentially pending retrial. (NNEDV Disappointed in SCOTUS' Counterman v. Colorado Decision)
Implications:
Across the country, many jurisdictions already use the intent requirement standard set by the Counterman case, and the decision will not lead to further barriers to justice for victims of stalking in many states.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co
Summary:
Robert Mallory sued the Norfolk Southern Railway Company in Pennsylvania, alleging that the company exposed him to harmful carcinogens during his employment in Ohio and Virginia from 1988 to 2005. Despite Mallory not working in Pennsylvania during his employment, he argued that since the company was registered to do business in PA, the state also had jurisdiction over the case. Pennsylvania law requires “foreign” companies to register with the Department of State of the Commonwealth to work in the state, which consists of Pennsylvania courts having general personal jurisdiction over the foreign company. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1168)
Question:
Does a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that confers jurisdiction (official power to make legal decisions and judgements) in the state over the registrant violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which guarantees the government must follow certain procedures when it comes to legal issues)? (Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. | Oyez)
Decision:
In a 4-1-4 plurality decision (wherein the Court could not reach a majority vote on the case), the Court upheld that Pennsylvania courts had personal jurisdiction over out-of-state entities that choose to do business in the state, meaning that people still can sue out-of-state corporations in Pennsylvania.
Implications:
The decision affects businesses and state sovereignty, because states can usurp power from each other. Businesses will also have to assess or reassess doing business in another state as their liability, both past, present and future, might be affected by the decision.
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc.
Summary:
Hetronic International, a US company, had a distribution agreement with Abitron Austria, a foreign corporation, for its radio remote controls in Europe. Abitron began infringing on Hetronic’s trademarks and selling identical products under Hetronic’s brand. After Hetronic sued, a jury awarded over $100 million in damages, and the district court issued a worldwide injunction to prevent Abitron from selling the infringing products. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that the Lanham Act applies outside of the United States but limited the scope of the injunction. (Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. | Oyez)
Question:
Does the Lanham Act permit the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for using that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States? (Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. | Oyez)
Decision:
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, which overturned the previous ruling and ruled that the relevant section of the Lanham Act does not apply outside of the United States. The Act only extends to copyright and trademark infringement claims that occur within the United States, and “use in commerce,” which means using a trademark in selling or transporting goods outside of the registered state, serves as the dividing line between foreign and domestic applications of these provisions. (Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. | Justia)
Implications:
The ruling sets a clear boundary for applying the Lanham Act in foreign infringement cases. US companies seeking reparations under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement committed by foreign entities must show that the infringing use of their trademarks occurred within the United States to make a valid claim.
Groff v. Dejoy
Summary:
Gerald Groff, a Christian US Postal Service worker, was fired for refusing to work on Sundays to his religious beliefs. Groff sued USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, arguing that the offered shift swaps did not fully accommodate his religion. The district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit both ruled in favor of USPS, finding that the requested accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the organization. (Groff v. Dejoy | Oyez)
Question:
Is inconvenience to coworkers an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing an accommodation requested for religious exercise? (Groff v. Dejoy | Oyez)
Decision:
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, which voided the Third Circuit’s decision, ruling that an employer must show substantially increased costs concerning its specific business to deny a religious accommodation under Title VII and that “more than a de minimis cost” is not sufficient to establish “undue hardship.” (Groff v. Dejoy | Justia)
Implications:
This ruling sets a higher standard for employers when considering religious accommodation requests and emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant factors to accommodate employees’ religious practices reasonably.
