Written by Attorney Riley Stheiner, with contributions from Kelly Quinlan.

Breaking Down Recent Supreme Court Decisions

At the beginning of July, the United States Supreme Court officially released their final opinions before taking a recess until October 2024. Typically, the final opinions released by the court before recess tend to be the most anticipated and controversial. This year was no different and brought us decisions on major cases like Securities and Exchange Commission v Jarkesy and Trump v United States, both of which we have discussed in earlier posts. Today, we are breaking down three other cases that have made headlines: United States v Rahimi, Ohio v Environmental Protection Agency, and Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.

United States v Rahimi

This case considers the Second Amendment and asked the Court to decide whether lower courts have the ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of a respondent of a civil domestic violence restraining order, even in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence charge or conviction.

Historically in Michigan, Circuit Courts who issue PPOs have had the ability to order the respondent of a PPO to possess no weapons and if applicable, surrender currently owned weapons while the order is in effect. The United States Supreme Court held on June 21, 2024, by an 8-1 ruling that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The Court held “[s]ince the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” United States v Rahimi, ___ US ___, __; 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024) (Docket No. 22915); slip op at 5.

What it means

This Supreme Court decision determined that it is legal for courts to prohibit people restrained by domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms during the time the order is in effect. In Michigan, a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) is the legal document that acts as a restraining order (you can read our blog about PPOs here). Additionally, in February 2024, a series of ‘Red Flag Laws’ went into effect in Michigan allowing for Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) to be granted by a court if they determine an individual to be a danger to themselves or others. ERPOs allow for police to seize the firearms of the individual if the court determines it is necessary.

While the Court in United States v Rahimi focused on the federal law, 18 U.S.C. §922, of which the Michigan law mimics, these laws, and others like it in many states, are now further supported by the Supreme Court ruling.

 

Ohio v Environmental Protection Agency

This case assessed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Good Neighbor Rule – which aims to reduce air pollution from industrial facilities based on the Clean Air Act. “Periodically, the [EPA] sets standards for common air pollutants, as necessary to ‘protect the public health.’”  Ohio v EPA, ___ US ___, __; 144 S Ct 2040 (2024) (Docket No. 23A349); slip op at 2. Once a new standard is set, States have three years to submit a plan regarding implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new standard. In mid-to-early 2022, the EPA announced their intent to disapprove of 23 state plans. During a period to allow for public comments, the EPA proposed a single federal plan for these non-satisfactory 23 state plans. The states challenged the EPA’s federal plan which authorizes a court “to ‘reverse any . . . . action’ taken in connection with a federal plan that is ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious.’” Id. at ___; slip op at 9. Thus, litigation ensued.

When the Court considered whether to grant a stay they considered (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether irreparable harm will occur, (3) the balance of equities, and (4) what the public’s interest is. After considering these factors, the Court held by a 5-4 vote that EPA’s federal plan shall be stayed pending the outcome of other legal actions being taken in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

What it means

While this opinion focuses on the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and when tied with recently decided cases, the Court has taken many small steps that have cumulatively reduced executive agencies’ ability to issue and enforce regulations.

 

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo

The Petitioners in this case are a group of businesses that operate in the Atlantic herring fishery and challenged whether under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act the National Marine Fisheries Service can require their businesses to pay for the services of observers who collect data for the purposes of conservation and management.

This case asks the Court to reconsider and reframe the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council, which established the extent to which a federal court should defer to a government agency’s construction when reviewing their actions. Often referred to as ‘Chevron deference,’ when a court reviews a law, if Congress’s intent is clear then the government agency is required to follow the law as written. When there is ambiguity that causes two or more interpretations, courts would defer to the agency’s interpretation in how to conduct the law.

In a 6-2 decision, with Justice Jackson excused, the Court determined that under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must exercise their own independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. However, courts may seek guidance from governmental agencies’ interpretation in making their decision. Chief Justice Roberts cites Marbury v Madison, a case from 1803 that created judicial review, and the intent of the framers of the US Constitution in support of the ruling. “Four decades after its inception, Chevron has thus become an impediment, rather than an aid, to accomplishing the basic judicial task of saying what the law is.” Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, 603 US ___; 144 S Ct 2244 (2024) (Docket No. 22451), slip op at 32.

What it means

This Supreme Court decision ultimately puts the power of interpretation of our laws with the judiciary rather than giving deference to governmental agencies when there is ambiguity in legislative interpretation. This decision is one that gained criticism from many organizations and the general public for a number of reasons. A quote from Justice Kagan’s dissent is telling of the impact of this opinion:

In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. Id. at ­­___ (KAGAN, J., dissenting); slip op at 4.

There is a lot of push back on this decision, along with other decisions from this Supreme Court term, all tied to changes in the regulatory abilities of government agencies. As many members of Congress react to the decision, bills have now been introduced to codify the Chevron deference. Only the future will tell what kind of regulatory abilities government agencies may have in the future.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court released 27 opinions in June 2024 and this blog focuses only on 3 that received widespread attention by both Lawyers and Non-Lawyers. Supreme Court decisions can be lengthy and difficult to decipher, which makes breakdowns like this a necessity. The Supreme Court officially began their annual recess, which will last until October when they begin hearing cases again.