Below is a list of big cases for which I have written an in-depth analysis. This list will be updated whenever I publish a new in-depth analysis following a major decision from the Court.
October Term 2020
- Trump v. Vance
- Case concerns: New York subpoena for President Trump’s tax records; presidential immunity.
- Questions presented:
- Whether a sitting president enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process.
- If not, whether a state prosecutor must show a “heightened need” for subpoenaing a sitting president’s personal documents.
- Held:
- No and no. 7:2, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan; and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in concurrence).
- Concurrence: Kavanaugh; dissents: Thomas and Alito.
- Chiafalo v. Washington
- Case concerns: Electoral College; Washington state law imposing fines on “faithless electors.”
- Question presented:
- Whether state laws requiring members of the electoral college to vote according to the electors’ pledges are unconstitutional.
- Held:
- No. 9:0, Justice Kagan (joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh).
- Concurrence: Thomas (in judgment).
- Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Case concerns: Separation of powers; Dodd-Frank Act; for-cause removal protections for the CFPB’s director,
- Questions presented:
- Whether the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that limits the president’s ability to remove the director of the CFPB to only for-cause factors violates the separation of powers.
- If so, whether the proper remedy is to sever that provision of the Dodd-Frank Act.
- Held:
- Yes. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).
- Yes. 7:2, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Alito and Kavanaugh, and Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in concurrence).
- Other opinions: Thomas (concurring and dissenting in part), Kagan (concurring and dissenting in part).
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
- Case concerns: Free Exercise Clause; Montana scholarship program.
- Question presented:
- Whether Montana violated the Free Exercise Clause by striking down a scholarship program on the ground that it affords scholarship winners the choice of going to a parochial school.
- Held:
- Yes. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).
- Concurrences: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch; dissents: Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
- June Medical Services v. Russo
- Case concerns: Abortion, Louisiana Act 620; stare decisis.
- Questions presented:
- Whether abortion doctors have standing to sue on behalf of their patients.
- Whether Louisiana’s Act 620, which imposes an admitting-privileges requirement on abortion doctors in the state, must be struck down as unconstitutional under Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016).
- Held:
- Yes and yes. 5:4, Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan; and Roberts in concurrence).
- Concurrence: Roberts (in judgment); dissents: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
- Bostock v. Clayton County
- Case concerns: 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII; LGBTQ/transgender rights.
- Question presented:
- Whether Title VII’s protection against employment discrimination on the basis of “sex” extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
- Held:
- Yes. 6:3, Justice Gorsuch (joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
- Dissents: Alito, Kavanaugh.
- DHS v. University of California
- Case concerns: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; administrative law.
- Questions presented:
- Whether the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind DACA is reviewable.
- Whether the manner in which the Secretary attempted to rescind DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Held:
- Yes. 9:0, Chief Justice Roberts (unanimous).
- Yes. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
- Concurrence: Sotomayor (in part and in judgment), Thomas (in judgment), Alito (in judgment in part), Kavanaugh (in judgment in part); dissents: Sotomayor (in part), Thomas (in part), Alito (in part), Kavanaugh (in part).
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York
- Case concerns: Second Amendment; mootness.
- Questions presented:
- Whether the case is moot.
- If not, whether New York City’s ordinance banning the transportation of guns to and from the city violates the Second Amendment.
- Held:
- Yes. 6:3, per curiam (Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh).
- N/A.
- Concurrence: Kavanaugh; dissent: Alito.
- Ramos v. Louisiana
- Case concerns: Sixth Amendment; unanimous juries; incorporation doctrine.
- Question presented:
- Whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous jury is incorporated against the states.
- Held:
- Yes, and Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) is overruled. 5:4, Justice Gorsuch (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh).
- Concurrences: Sotomayor, Kavanaugh (in part), Thomas (in judgment); dissent: Alito.
- Allen v. Cooper
- Case concerns: 1990 Copyright Remedy and Clarification Act; state sovereign immunity.
- Question presented:
- Whether the CRCA validly abrogated state sovereign immunity.
- Held:
- No. 7:2, Justice Kagan (joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).
- Concurrences: Thomas (in part and in judgment), Breyer (in judgment).
October Term 2019
- Rucho v. Common Cause
- Case concerns: partisan gerrymandering; political question doctrine.
- Question presented:
- Whether claims alleging excessive partisan gerrymandering are justiciable.
- Held:
- No. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).
- Dissent: Kagan.
- Department of Commerce v. New York
- Case concerns: 2020 Census; administrative law.
- Questions presented:
- Whether the Enumeration Clause permits the addition of a citizenship question to a decennial census.
- Whether the manner in which the Secretary of Commerce attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Held:
- Yes. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).
- Yes. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
- Concurrences: Thomas (in part), Ginsburg (in part), Alito (in part); dissents: Thomas (in part), Ginsburg (in part), Alito (in part).
- American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.
- Case concerns: Establishment Clause; crosses on public land.
- Question presented:
- Whether a Maryland cross situated on public land violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- Held:
- No. 7:2, Justice Alito (joined by Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh; Thomas and Gorsuch agreed on standing grounds).
- Concurrences: Breyer, Kavanaugh, Kagan (in part), Thomas (in judgment), Gorsuch (in judgment); dissent: Ginsburg.
- Gamble v. United States
- Case concerns: Fifth Amendment; double jeopardy.
- Question presented:
- Whether Heath v. Alabama (1985), which created the “dual-sovereignty” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, should be overruled.
- Held:
- No. 7:2, Justice Alito (joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh).
- Concurrence: Thomas; dissents: Ginsburg and Gorsuch.
- Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
- Case concerns: Eleventh Amendment; state sovereign immunity.
- Question presented:
- Whether Nevada v. Hall (1979), which allows parties to sue a state in another state’s courts, should be overruled.
- Held:
- Yes. 5:4, Justice Thomas (joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).
- Dissent: Breyer.
October Term 2018
- Trump v. Hawaii
- Case concerns: Immigration law; Presidential Proclamation No. 9465, suspending entry of certain aliens from Muslim-majority nations into the U.S.
- Questions presented:
- Whether President Trump has the authority under current immigration law to issue Proclamation No. 9465.
- Whether Proclamation No. 9465 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- Held:
- Yes. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).
- No. 5:4, Chief Justice Roberts (same).
- Concurrences: Kennedy and Thomas; dissents: Breyer and Sotomayor.
- Nat’l Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra
- Case concerns: Free Speech Clause; California’s Reproductive “FACT” Act of 2015.
- Question presented:
- Whether the FACT Act compels speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
- Held:
- Yes. 5:4, Justice Thomas (joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Gorsuch).
- Concurrence: Kennedy; dissent: Breyer.