5 SCOTUS Cases You Need To Know in 2024
By Lucy Ritzmann
Each year, the Supreme Court releases its recent decisions sometime between April and late June or early July. And usually, the Court saves its most momentous decisions until the end – remember that the Dobbs decision, which led to millions of women losing access to reproductive care, wasn’t handed down until June 24, 2022.
And as we had towards the end of the 2024 SCOTUS decision period, while we have already received some big decisions, we are anticipating several more that will have an impact on every person in this nation. At COURIER, we recently released Grave Injustice, a podcast from legal expert Lisa Graves that will walk you through the five SCOTUS cases you need to know about.
Make sure you take a listen – and as a preview, here is a quick overview of the five critical SCOTUS decisions that have happened or are about to happen in 2024:
1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v. the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
After the Dobbs decision came down and Roe v. Wade was overturned, far-right groups wasted no time going after women’s remaining rights and putting together a case to target abortion pills like Mifepristone. Enter the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: it’s an umbrella organization founded in 2022 in Texas that is just five anti-abortion groups masquerading as a true medical organization.
The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine made an argument that the FDA did not have sufficient evidence to approve Mifepristone when it did so in 2000, 24 years ago. (For almost a quarter of a century, doctors and patients have used and relied upon access to this medication).
The case made its way to the Supreme Court – and the Court’s decision was actually released last week and was some long-awaited good news for pro-choice advocates. The Court unanimously voted to maintain broad access to Mifepristone across the US, a relief to the thousands and thousands of women who would be stranded with no access to abortion care without it.
This country might not be out of the woods, however, when it comes to ensuring the right to a medication abortion: legal scholars were quick to point out online that the Court actually left the door open for a more compelling plaintiff than the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine to come to the Court and put Mifepristone back on the chopping block. This is definitely something to keep an eye on in 2025.
This case centers around Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who had a domestic violence restraining order against him because he had attacked his ex-girlfriend and shot a bystander in 2020. The police then found a rifle and a pistol in Rahimi’s home, violating the law that people with domestic violence restraining orders against them can’t possess firearms. Rahimi pleaded guilty and was indicted.
This case might seem like an easy one – and one in which a proper outcome occurred. But Rahimi wasn’t done yet. Instead, he made a constitutional challenge and argued that the law under which he had been indicted violated the Constitution because it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court, where Rahimi’s case ultimately landed, heard arguments on this case in November. Their decision on United States v. Rahimi will have massive implications on gun ownership in this country – and could very well empower violent abusers to have easy access to weapons.
3. Alexander vs. the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
This case was actually decided by the Supreme Court last month. And its outcome will have major implications on state and local governments – and all elections – for many years to come.
After the 2020 census, South Carolina’s Republican legislature drew thousands and thousands of Black voters out of a district in order to ensure that a Republican would win it, instead of a Democrat. When the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP sued on racial gerrymandering grounds, they initially won the suit in South Carolina.
The Republican legislators who had done the gerrymandering, however, brought the case to the Supreme Court. And in May 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that this gerrymandering wasn’t racially motivated – it was politically motivated in a way that just happened to be racial.
Now, this might feel like remarkably flimsy logic – but it is now also an established legal precedent that governs this nation. And it essentially empowers legislatures who are interested in targeting and disenfranchising voters of color (in a nation that has a long, wrong, and sordid history of doing just that) in order to get what they want.
4. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
On the surface, this case looks like a simple dispute from a group of fishermen. But the reality is far more complex. It’s true that this suit was brought by Loper Bright Enterprises, which is led by New England herring fisherman Bill Bright. Bright, however, is being bankrolled and supported by a group of billionaires who are trying to overturn a longstanding US legal principle.
The law at issue in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is the National Marine Fisheries Service’s ability to fine and restrict fishermen. That law is, in turn, enabled by something called the doctrine of Chevron Deference. Chevron Deference was established in 1984 and it mandates that “federal courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer.” Basically, the federal courts have to let federal agencies have the final word on regulation.
And it’s the issue of regulation that set this whole case in motion. Right-wing billionaires, like petrochemical magnate Charles Koch, really don’t like to be regulated. So when Charles Koch heard about Bill Bright and the fishermen’s suit, he smelled an opportunity and threw money behind Bright’s case. If Bright and his billionaire backers can successfully convince the Supreme Court to overturn the doctrine of Chevron Deference in this case this year, then the door for people like Charles Koch to do essentially whatever they want with no governmental oversight could be wide open.
There is a specter that has been hanging over the United States for years: the looming question of whether or not a president can be held accountable in criminal court for his or her actions, even if they have already left office. Trump v. The United States is the embodiment of that specter – and soon, we will have an answer.
In August 2023, following Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the January 6th insurrection, Donald Trump was indicted on four counts for his actions. Trump’s trial was set for this past March but he managed to fend it off, claiming he had immunity. Jack Smith then asked the Supreme Court to expedite a decision on whether or not Trump is immune.
And until they make that decision, the whole nation is essentially waiting with bated breath. Whatever the Supreme Court decides – either if Trump is not immune and can be prosecuted for his role in the attack on the Capitol or if he is immune and will get away with said attack – will play a huge role in the future of this democracy.
