Recent Decisions
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland
Oral argument date: January 10, 2025
Decision date: January 17, 2025
Facts: The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was signed into law on April 24th, 2024 with the intention to regulate foreign applications and platforms. The petitioners, TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd., argue that the Act violates the First Amendment. Under the Act, countries including China are identified as foreign adversaries and therefore subjected to more extensive control regarding the distribution, maintenance, and use of platforms like TikTok. The Act would require that ByteDance sell the TikTok platform to an approved buyer, specifying a timeframe before effective ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia previously denied the petition, concluding that the Act was not only constitutional, but crucial for government interests in national security.
Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violates the First Amendment.
Holding: Application of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The effective ban on TikTok is upheld.
Significance: The decision in TikTok, Inc. v. Garland has far-reaching implications on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, application of First Amendment civil liberties to foreign-based companies, and regulation of widely-distributed platforms such as TikTok and other social media. Upholding application of the Act to TikTok may make it unlawful for U.S. app stores to promote, distribute, maintain, or update the platform if ByteDance cannot or is unwilling to sell the platform to an approved buyer.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Oral Argument Date: October 15, 2024
Decision Date: December 10, 2024
Facts: In 2014, Petitioner Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 visa petition for her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, which United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially approved. Later, the Secretary notified Bouarfa of intent to revoke the approval, citing Hamayel's prior marriage as a "sham marriage" under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). Ms. Bouarfa’s appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals were denied. They found that there was “good and sufficient cause” for revocation under § 1154. Ms. Bouarfa challenged the agency’s revocation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming the officials’ actions were arbitrary and capricious. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)–a provision barring federal courts of jurisdiction from reviewing certain discretionary agency decisions–the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to review the decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issue(s): May a visa petitioner obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria?
Holding: Revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is a discretionary decision that falls within 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review such actions.
Significance: This decision underscores the broad discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security in immigration proceedings, particularly concerning visa petition revocations. It clarifies that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review these discretionary decisions, even when they involve non-discretionary criteria. The decision has significant implications for noncitizens and their families, as it limits the avenues for judicial recourse against visa petition revocations.
Cases on the Docket From October to December 2024
Glossip v. Oklahoma
Oral Argument Date: October 9, 2024
Facts: Richard Glossip was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Tresse, allegedly hiring Justin Sneed to commit the crime. A court overturned Mr. Glossip’s original conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Later, in 2004, Mr. Glossip was retried and sentenced to death largely based on Mr. Sneed’s testimony, who claimed Glossip paid him $10,000 to kill Mr. Van Tresse. Years later, evidence emerged that Mr. Sneed had given false testimony regarding his mental health and psychiatric treatment, and prosecutors har failed to disclose this information. Additionally, evidence suggested that Mr. Sneed intended to recant his testimony. An independent investigation by the Oklahoma Attorney General found procedural misconduct that undermined the confidence in Glossip’s conviction, prompting the Attorney General filing a motion support Mr. Glossip’s case.
In 2023, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied Mr. Glossip’s motion to vacate his conviction, and the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board rejected his clemency request. Although Mr. Glossip was scheduled for execution in May 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted him a stay of execution, with Oklahoma filing a response in support of the stay.
Issue(s):
Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois;
whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims;
whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and
whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Significance: This case has significant implications for prosecutorial misconduct, wrongful convictions, and the death penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have a lasting impact on how such issues are addressed in capital cases. It could strengthen safeguards against wrongful executions, impacting not only Richard Glossip but the broader legal and ethical framework surrounding the death penalty in the United States.
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Argument Date: October 16, 2024
Facts: The city of San Francisco operates a combined sewer that collects both sewage and rainwater runoff, which can release pollutants into the Pacific Ocean during heavy rainfall.
Under the Clean Water Act, cities are required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to regulate such discharges. In 2019, the Enviormental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Regional Quality Control Board issued the city’s NPDES permit. The city later contested the permit, claiming that the EPA overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by imposing vague prohibitions that could hold individual permitholders responsible for the overall water quality of receiving bodies rather than individual contributions. The EPA Enviormental Appeals Board rejected San Francisco’s appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld this decision, ruling that the Clean Water Act grants the EPA the authority to include the challenged provisions in the permit.
Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
Significance: This case highlights questions of statutory interpretation, administrative, and environmental law, particulary in the wake of the overturning of Chevron. This case may clarify how the U.S. Supreme Court anticipates agency deference to act after Chevron, and the ability for courts to make textual determinations and trump agency deferral and expertise.
United States v. Skrmetti
Oral Argument Date: December 4, 2024
Facts: In 2023, Tennessee passed laws restricting certain medical gender-affirming treatments for transgender minors. These laws prohibit healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-transition surgeries to minors for the purpose validating their gender identity when inconsistent with their biological sex. The law would also require transgender youth to cease receiving gender-affirming care within nine months of the law’s effective date. It establishes a private right of action against medical providers providing gender-affirming treatment to minors.
Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Significance:The court’s holding could have significant implications for transgender youth across the United States. Recently, district courts blocked similar bans in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, but the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have allowed these bans to take effect. If the U.S. Supreme Court finds the Tennesee bill constitutional, it may affect the outcome of cases across the United States.