SCOTUS Update | June 2023

Recent Decisions

Allen v. Milligan (formerly Merrill v. Milligan)

Oral argument date: October 4, 2022
Decided on: June 8, 2023

Facts:  Following the 2020 consensus, Alabama changed its districts for its seven U.S. House of Representatives seats to create one majority-Black district and divide other Black voters across multiple districts. The Voting Rights Act outlaws racial discrimination in voting policies. Voters and organizations challenged the new map, arguing that the state purposefully and illegally constructed the map to minimize the power of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The district court sided with the challengers and granted a preliminary injunction that ordered the state to create a new map. The U.S. Supreme Court froze the district court’s injunction pending a merits decision. The ABA filed an amicus brief in this case.

Issue(s):

1. Whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
   

Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Milligan et al., finding that the Alabama redistricting plan likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama will have to create a new redistricting plan for next year’s elections with a second majority-black district.

Significance: If the existing map is upheld, the power of the Voting Rights Act would be significantly diminished, and Black voters would have less influence in Alabama House of Representatives elections than white voters. A decision to uphold the redistricting plan could have prevented future challenges to redistricting maps that discriminate on the basis of race, exacerbating the issue of racially biased gerrymandering. In recent years, the Court has significantly hollowed out the Voting Rights Act; however, this decision preserves Section 2 of the Act to protect against racially-biased voting discrimination.

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC

Oral argument date: March 22, 2023
Decided on: June 8, 2023

Facts: A dog toy manufacturer, VIP Products LLC, created a plastic dog toy in the shape of Jack Daniel’s iconic bottle. The toy parodies the original bottle’s label, with its “label” reading “Bad Spaniels” as opposed to “Jack Daniel’s,” and “The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee Carpet” instead of the “Old No. 7” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey." Jack Daniel’s sued VIP Products LLC for violating its trademark. The district court found that the toy was a humorous parody of Jack Daniel’s trademark and entitled to First Amendment protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.

Issue(s):

1. Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or is instead entitled to heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and 
2. Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial,” barring claims of dilution under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.
   

Holding: The Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., finding that the “Bad Spaniels” parody of the “Jack Daniel’s” trademark was used as a trademark. In instances such as this, the Court found that the Rogers test for trademark infringement claims on expressive works does not apply, and the Lanham Act’s exclusion from liability for “[a]ny noncommercial use of a mark” does not shield parody, commentary, or criticism from trademark dilution claims.

Significance: This decision could make it easier for trademark holders to sue over parody products. It clarifies the extent to which parody products are covered by First Amendment protection, stating that humorous parody of a trademark is subject to claims of dilution under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Oral argument date: October 3, 2022
Decided on: May 25, 2023

Facts: Michael and Chantall Sackett attempted to build a home on a residential lot they own near Priest Lake, Idaho. However, the Environmental Protection Agency halted construction shortly after they began placing sand and gravel, claiming that building on the land violated the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency claims that the Sacketts need to restore the property to its natural state because the lot contains wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” under the Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over the property under the Clean Water Act despite the fact that the agency removed its compliance order during litigation.

Issue(s):

1. Whether the appeals court utilized the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. 

Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the Sacketts, finding that the Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters of the United States” making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.

Significance: This court case significantly impacts the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate and protect wetlands by redefining what a wetland is. It uproots long-standing precedents in environmental law and increases the likelihood of pollution and harm to the environment as many wetlands are no longer protected. This could severely damage water quality, flood control, and wild habitats.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh

Oral argument date: February 22, 2023
Decided on: May 18, 2023

Facts: This case arises from the same set of facts as Gonzalez v. Google. In 2015, a U.S. citizen, Nohemi Gonzalez, was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris, France. ISIS, a foreign terrorist organization, published a YouTube video claiming responsibility for the attack. Gonzalez’s father sued Google, Twitter, and Facebook, arguing that they were liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism because they failed to take meaningful action to prevent terrorists from using their platforms. The district court dismissed Gonzalez’s claims, finding that they did not fall under the Anti-Terrorism Act’s aiding and abetting liability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision.

Issue(s):

1. Whether an internet platform “knowingly” provides substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 when it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent misuse; and
2. Whether an internet platform can be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333 when their services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff.

Holding: The Court ruled unanimously in Twitter’s favor, finding that Twitter could not have aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey because Twitter did not “knowingly” provide substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C § 2333.

Significance: If the Court had found against Twitter, basic functions of social media platforms may have been impacted as tech companies attempted to avoid future liability, making websites less functional and less user-friendly. Since the Court found in favor of Twitter, the status quo for tech companies will likely be upheld. The Court found that, while bad actors may be able to use social media platforms to enact harm, “the same could be said of cell phones, email, or the internet generally.”

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Oral argument date: February 21, 2023
Decided on: May 18, 2023

Facts:  This case arises from the same set of facts as Twitter v. Taamneh. In 2015, a U.S. citizen, Nohemi Gonzalez, was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris, France. ISIS, a foreign terrorist organization, published a YouTube video claiming responsibility for the attack. Gonzalez’s father sued Google, Twitter, and Facebook, arguing that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use its YouTube platform and that Google’s YouTube video recommendation algorithm assists ISIS in spreading its message. The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.

Issue(s):

1.  Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of content provided by another information content provider.

Holding: The Court declined to answer the question presented in this case. The Court ruled unanimously to vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with Twitter v. Taamneh.

Significance: If the Court had found against Google, it could have significantly impacted the useability of YouTube since millions of videos are uploaded every day and it would be very difficult to find new content without video recommendations. Additionally, a decision against Google would have limited the protections offered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was intended to make the internet safer and more user-friendly by protecting companies from liability when they monitor the content on their website. Prior to Section 230, companies could face more liability by monitoring user-uploaded content than they would by not monitoring content at all. A decision against Google would have greatly impacted user experience; however, the Court’s decision for Google maintains the status quo.

Upcoming Decision

Counterman v. Colorado

Oral argument date: April 19, 2023

Facts: Billy Raymond Counterman repeatedly sent “creepy” and threatening messages to a woman over Facebook in 2014, creating numerous accounts to continue to message the woman even after she had repeatedly blocked him. These messages included statements about him watching her and wanting her to die or be killed. He was arrested and charged with three counts – one count of stalking (credible threat), one count of stalking (serious emotional distress), and one count of harassment – in 2016 after the woman reported him to law enforcement. The prosecution dismissed the count of stalking (credible threat) before trial, but Counterman claimed that the remaining charges violated his First Amendment rights, arguing that they were not “true threats.” A jury found him guilty of stalking and the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

Issue(s):

1. Whether the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of a statement to establish that a statement is a "true threat," unprotected by the First Amendment, or if it is enough for the government to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
   

Significance: This decision could clarify the extent of First Amendment protection virtual communications receive and whether threatening messages on social media platforms can qualify as “true threats.” This would impact the extent of legal protection victims of cyberstalking have against their aggressor.

Groff v. DeJoy

Oral argument date: April 18, 2023

Facts: Gerald Groff worked for the U.S. Postal Service. He refused to work on Sundays because of his Christian religious beliefs. His employer offered to find employees to cover his shifts; however, they were unsuccessful on numerous occasions and Groff still did not work. The U.S. Postal Service fired Groff, and he sued them for violating his Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections, claiming that the U.S. Postal Service failed to reasonably accommodate his religion. The district court granted summary judgment for the U.S. Postal Service, finding that Groff’s requested accommodation would pose an undue burden on his former employer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld this decision. The ABA has an upcoming program on this case.

Issue(s):

1. Whether an employer can demonstrate “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the coworkers of the employee rather than the business itself.
   

Significance: This case could clarify the extent of religious protection employees are entitled to under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and what restrictions on that religious protection exist. If it is found that Groff’s request posed an undue burden to his employer, it could have far reaching implications on people’s ability to practice their religion. It could affect employees’ ability to attend religious services or wear religious clothing like a hijab or yarmulke.

Arizona v. Navajo Nation

Oral argument date: March 20, 2023

Facts: The Navajo Nation wanted to develop a plan with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior to protect the Navajo Nation’s water needs. The Navajo Nation sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and other federal agencies for failing to comply with federal fiduciary duties by not considering the Navajo Nation’s water rights in managing the Colorado River. The states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado intervened in the case to protect their interests in the Colorado River water rights. The district court dismissed the Navajo Nation’s claim, finding that the U.S. Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of Colorado River water rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, finding that the federal government has a duty of trust to protect the Navajo Nation’s unadjudicated claims to water when managing the Lower Colorado River for the part of the Navajo Nation located in Arizona.

Issue(s):

1. Whether the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion infringes on the U.S. Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of Colorado River water rights; and
2. Whether the Navajo Nation can make a claim for breach of trust based solely on implied water rights.
   

Significance: This case would determine the scope of the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the Colorado River waters and either protect or undermine tribal rights. It could affect the stability of water rights in the Lower Colorado River Basin, impacting the Navajo Nation’s access to water.

Biden v. Nebraska

Oral argument date: February 28, 2023

Facts: In August of 2022, the Biden administration announced a plan to forgive up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for those who qualify. Six states, including Nebraska, challenged the student loan debt relief program, arguing that it violates the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the states lacked standing to sue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit paused the debt relief program pending appeal.

Issue(s):

1. Whether Nebraska and other states have Article III standing to challenge the student loan debt relief program; and
2. Whether the student loan debt relief program exceeds the U.S. Secretary of Education’s statutory authority or violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
   

Significance: This case could have a significant impact on borrowers’ ability to receive student loan debt forgiveness, affecting millions of Americans’ financial situations. Additionally, it may clarify or redefine the powers of the Secretary of Education, altering the avenues through which the Biden administration can pursue student loan debt relief. It may also impact the separation of state and federal power by determining whether states have the power to challenge the program.

Department of Education v. Brown

Oral argument date: February 28, 2023

Facts: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Secretary of Education created a student loan forgiveness program for low- to middle-income borrowers, invoking its authority under the HEROES Act. Student loan borrowers Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor challenged the Department of Education’s student loan debt relief program because they were not eligible for debt forgiveness under the program. They argued that the Biden administration failed to adopt the plan using proper procedures, preventing the borrowers from urging a plan that would have been more beneficial to them. The district court issued a nationwide injunction, finding the program to be an unconstitutional use of legislative power. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. 

Issue(s):

1. Whether Brown and Taylor have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education’s student loan debt relief program; and
2. Whether the Department of Education followed the proper procedures when adopting this program.
   

Significance: This case could limit the avenues through which the federal government could create a student loan forgiveness program, affecting borrowers’ financial situations. The Court’s decision on standing may also have sweeping implications on the ability of federal agencies to pursue policies by opening the door for all manner of federal litigation.

Moore v. Harper

Oral argument date: December 7, 2022

Facts: Following the 2020 Census, North Carolina was required to redistrict because it gained a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The state legislature passed a gerrymandered map benefiting the Republican majority. The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map in February 2022, finding that it violated the state constitution’s “free elections clause.” The court ordered a special master to create the 2022 congressional elections map. The ABA filed an amicus brief in this case.

Issue(s):

1. Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify election regulations set by the legislature and replace them with regulations devised by a state court, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.
   

Significance: This case could have severe implications on free and fair state elections if the Court finds that state legislators have unlimited power to set their own rules for voting and elections. This would eliminate the ability of the courts to provide a check on voter suppression and election tampering.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Oral argument date: Dec 5, 2022

Facts: Founder and owner of the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith, would like to expand her business to include wedding websites. However, she has religious objections to same-sex marriage and does not want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples. Smith would like to post a message on her website explaining her religious objections to same-sex marriage. The Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, including sexual orientation. The law requires any business that chooses to serve the public to provide the same services to all patrons and prohibits the publishing of messages indicating that members of a protected class are not welcome. Smith and her company filed a pre-enforcement challenge to the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act in federal court, arguing that it violates the First Amendment by compelling their speech. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision. The ABA filed an amicus brief in this case and will hold a Showcase Program on it during the ABA Annual Meeting in Denver, CO.

Issue(s):

1. Whether it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to compel an artist to speak or stay silent on the basis of a public-accommodation law.
   

Significance: The Supreme Court has historically held that public accommodation laws do not violate the First Amendment. The overturning of this precedent could corrode nondiscrimination protections for all protected classes.

United States v. Texas

Oral argument date: November 29, 2022

Facts: The Secretary of Homeland Security issued Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law in September 2021 to more effectively allocate limited resources as it was not feasible to remove every deportable person living in the United States. Texas and Louisiana challenged these guidelines, and a federal court found that both states had Article III standing since the guidelines would force the states to increase spending on social services and law enforcement. The court vacated the guidelines nationwide, finding that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act by giving Homeland Security complete discretion over detainment processes. The ABA filed an amicus brief in this case.

Issue(s):

1. Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; and
2. Whether the guidelines violate the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to “hold unlawful and set aside” the guidelines under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
   

Significance: This decision would not only determine whether the Department of Homeland Security guidelines are legal but also when states are able to challenge federal immigration enforcement.

Haaland v. Brackeen

Oral argument date: November 9, 2022

Facts: The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 established that Native American children who must be removed from their family are placed either with relatives or in Native foster homes. Several states and individuals, including several couples who wished to foster or adopt Native children, challenged the act arguing that it violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principles. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, striking down portions of the act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision in a fractured ruling wherein the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc reversed some portions of the district court’s decision and upheld others. The ABA filed an amicus brief in this case.

Issue(s):

1. Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 — namely, the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections 1915(e) and 1951(a) — violate the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment;
2. Whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWA’s placement preferences for “other Indian families” and for “Indian foster home[s];” and
3. Whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.
   

Significance: The Court’s finding could greatly impact the functioning of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which has been in place for over three decades. Due to a history of systemic racism and oppression, Native children are at a significantly higher risk of child welfare intervention and removal from the home. This decision could affect the placement of Native American children within Native American homes, impacting the preservation of Native culture, and corrode tribal sovereignty.

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Oral argument date: October 31, 2022

Facts: Race is one of the many factors considered in Harvard’s admissions process in accordance with the requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger. Students for Fair Admissions sued the college, claiming that their process disadvantaged Asian Americans, violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A district court found in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The ABA filed an amicus brief in this case.

Issue(s):

1. Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and
2. Whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.
   

Significance: The Court’s finding could force the alteration of affirmative action policies in higher education across the country.

Learn More

Curious about past Supreme Court terms and the status of case decisions? Check previous editions of our SCOTUS Updates (Summer 2021, Fall 2021, Spring 2021, Winter 2021) from the Section's quarterly e-Newsletter on cases related to civil rights and social justice. 

Additionally, the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice routinely hosts webinars and panels, discussing social inequities and their legal connection. If you are interested in learning more about these issues, recordings of past webinars can be found on the Section’s YouTube channel. 

Please refer to the directory of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Section’s website, which contains amicus briefs filed by the ABA pertaining to civil rights cases. 

For existing policy, check out the Policy Project, featuring a compilation of all policy drafted by the ABA relating to the committees of the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice. 

The ABA has also created a Law, Society and the Judiciary Task Force to consider the range of issues implicated in Dobbs and Bruen.