2023-2024 Supreme Court Term Review

Trump v. United States

The Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2024. The case was decided on July 1, 2024. 

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the complex questions of whether former President Trump and any other president or former president enjoys blanket immunity for crimes committed while in office, and which of the many criminal charges can proceed to trial. The case reached the Supreme Court after Trump appealed the decision of a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, which held that Trump was not immune; “it would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.”

In a 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “core constitutional” actions and presumptive immunity for all “official acts” taken while in office. This decision, determined along ideological lines, establishes a broad new definition of presidential power, contradictory to the Constitution’s principles and the rule of law. As quoted in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, “the relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

The Court ruled that former President Trump has absolute immunity for his discussions with Justice Department officials following the 2020 election and presumptive immunity for his efforts to pressure then Vice President Pence to block Congressional certification of the election results. The Court, however, did not specifically address prosecutions surrounding Trump’s efforts to compile fake electors nor his actions to incite and advance the January 6 insurrection. The lower courts will now need to determine if those latter actions were taken “within [Trump’s] conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” and or if they were “unofficial” acts, for which a president does not enjoy immunity.

More broadly, this unprecedented ruling could forever alter the American presidency and the structure of democracy. Counter to constitutional norms and the tenets of democracy, the presidency now exists significantly above the other two branches of the American federal government, posing an utmost threat to the mere existence of American democracy. As stated by Justice Sotomayor, “let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends…that is the majority’s message today.” Similarly stated by Justice Jackson, in her dissent, “the seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted. And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely…I worry that, after today’s ruling, our Nation will reap what this Court has sown.”

No longer can it be stated that “no one is above the law.”

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Trump v. Anderson 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on February 8, 2024. The case was decided on March 4, 2024. 

In 2023, a group of Colorado voters sued to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and bar former President Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot. Section 3 is a Reconstruction Era provision of the Constitution which holds that officers of the United States who either engaged in an insurrection or supported insurrectionists are ineligible to hold elected office. The Colorado trial court ruled that Trump was not barred from holding office under Section 3 while the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the opposite. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

On March 4, 2024, an unsigned majority of the conservative Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not disqualify Trump from the ballot, determining that only Congress, and not the states, can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, as Section 5 of the 14th Amendment grants authority to Congress to determine who Section 3 applies to by allowing the legislature to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the 14th Amendment.  Justices  Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson agreed that Colorado could not remove Trump from the ballot, but issued a joint opinion arguing that the Court’s determination that states cannot enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates was “sufficient to resolve this case;” in other words, the Court should not, they wrote, have commented on “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” Trump v. Anderson is a landmark Supreme Court case on par with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. FEC.

Fischer v. United States 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on April 16, 2024. The case was decided on June 28, 2024. 

In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court considered 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2), the federal obstruction statute under which the Department of Justice charged hundreds of January 6 defendants. The provision allows a 20-year maximum sentence to be imposed on those who “obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding, or attempt to do so.” Joseph Fischer, who was charged under the statute for his riotous behavior on January 6, argued that the provision prohibits the tampering of evidence in an official proceeding but is not applicable to the conduct exhibited at the Capitol.

A 6-3 majority of the Court ruled in Fischer’s favor, holding that the statute cannot be used to prosecute the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts narrowly interpreted the statute, stating that while the government’s “all-encompassing interpretation” of (c)(2) is “literally permissible,” the provision must be read in light of its “surrounding words,” specifically the preceding subsection, (c)(1), which applies to anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document… with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” In other words, (c)(2) applies only when a defendant impairs the integrity of physical evidence. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Barrett advocated for a broader reading of the provision, arguing that (c)(2) should be read as a standalone provision, not in conjunction with (c)(1). In Barrett’s view, the provision’s applicability to insurrectionists like Mr. Fischer “seems open and shut.”

Snyder v. United States 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on April 15, 2024. The case was decided on June 26, 2024.

In Synder, the central issue was whether federal law criminalizes state and local officials accepting gratuities for past official acts. The former mayor of Portage, Indiana, was convicted of accepting $13,000 from a truck company after awarding it a city contract. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 666, which addresses bribery involving federal funds, arguing that his acceptance of the gratuity constituted a federal crime.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, held that Section 666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Court emphasized that for an action to be considered bribery under this statute, there must be a corrupt agreement made before the official act is performed. Accepting a gift or gratuity after an official act, without such a prior agreement, does not fall under this law. Justice Jackson, in her dissent, argued that this interpretation undermines efforts to combat corruption effectively. She highlighted that the statute’s language, which makes it a crime to accept “anything of value” with the intent to be influenced or rewarded, should cover gratuities paid after the fact. She expressed concern that the ruling leaves the federal government less capable of prosecuting wrongful conduct in state and local governments. This ruling narrows the scope of federal anti-bribery laws. It means that state and local officials can accept gifts or rewards for actions they have already taken, provided there was no prior agreement to exchange those actions for the gifts. This decision may make it more challenging to prosecute cases of public corruption unless clear evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo can be shown.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on October 11, 2023. The case was decided on May 23, 2024. 

In Alexander, the Court once again took aim at the Voting Rights Act, further weakening the landmark legislation and making it nigh impossible for plaintiffs to challenge racial gerrymandering. Justice Alito, writing for the 6-3 majority, found that the district court erred in ruling that the South Carolina legislators engaged in racial gerrymandering. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not “disentangle race and politics” and therefore could not succeed on their racial gerrymandering claim. The opinion went further than that, however, creating new, unnecessary hurdles for plaintiffs to jump through when challenging racial gerrymandering.

Per Alito, the inquiry into whether a legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering starts with the deeply flawed presumption that the legislature acted in good faith. Just how state legislatures, with their long and troubling history of racist map drawing, earned this presumption of good faith is entirely unclear. The Court further imposed a new evidentiary requirement, forcing plaintiffs challenging racial gerrymandering to produce an alternative legislative map which serves the legislatures’ proposed political ends. Legislative map drawing is an incredibly specialized skill and now plaintiffs will need to find and pay these experts in order to challenge racial gerrymandering. To quote Justice Kagan’s dissent, “in every way, the majority…stacks the deck against the Challengers.” We can and should be concerned about Alexander’s implications for the health of our multiracial democracy.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

The Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2024. The case was decided on June 28, 2024. 

In 2020, several fishing companies sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) over a rule that required the companies to pay for third party observers on certain boats. The companies argued that the NMFS did not have the power to implement the rule and took aim at the Chevron Doctrine. The 40-year-old administrative law doctrine required Courts to defer to agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutes.

In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court overruled Chevron, fundamentally changing the way our administrative state will work moving forward. This blockbuster decision takes power from administrative agencies, and their cadre of experts, and gives it to courts – a shocking power grab from the judicial branch.

The implications of the Court’s ruling cannot be overstated. Where, in the past, agencies received deference on their interpretations of ambiguous statutes, now non-expert judges will step in to evaluate these laws. Writing in dissent, Justice Kagan emphasized the problems with the Court’s precedent-shattering approach: “agencies are staffed with ‘experts in the field’ who bring their training to bear on open statutory questions. Consider, for example…When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a ‘protein’? I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue…But the FDA likely has scores of scientists on staff who can think intelligently about it, maybe collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer.”  Now, instead of deferring to agency experts, judges will get to step in and make these hyper-complex policy decisions. Loper Bright is a shocking repudiation of decades of administrative law and will wreak havoc on our system of government.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Securities Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2023. The case was decided on June 27, 2024. 

In Securities Exchange Commission v. Jaresky, George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager, was accused of fraud by the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Instead of going to an Article III court, the SEC used its own administrative law judges (“ALJs”) to decide the case. Jarkesy argued that this was unfair and unconstitutional because everyone should have the right to a fair trial in a regular court with a jury of their peers. The core issue was whether the SEC could use ALJs to decide cases, or if individuals like Jarkesy should be tried in traditional courts. Jarkesy contended that the current system violated his constitutional rights, particularly the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements.  This case also involved the non-delegation doctrine, which restricts Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative powers to agencies.

Justice Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, found that that the SEC’s use of its own ALJs to adjudicate enforcement actions violated the Constitution. Specifically, the Court held that the SEC’s process violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and the practice of Congress delegating power to the SEC without clear guidelines violated the non-delegation doctrine. The decision challenges the established practice of using ALJs, which could lead to significant changes in how administrative cases are handled across various federal agencies. By reinforcing the non-delegation doctrine, the ruling limits the extent to which Congress can delegate legislative power to agencies without providing clear guidelines, potentially reshaping the framework of administrative law.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

The Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2024. The case was decided on June 28, 2024. 

In 2020, several fishing companies sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) over a rule that required the companies to pay for third party observers on certain boats. The companies argued that the NMFS did not have the power to implement the rule and took aim at the Chevron Doctrine. The 40-year-old administrative law doctrine required Courts to defer to agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutes.

In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court overruled Chevron, fundamentally changing the way our administrative state will work moving forward. This blockbuster decision takes power from administrative agencies, and their cadre of experts, and gives it to courts – a shocking power grab from the judicial branch.

The implications of the Court’s ruling cannot be overstated. Where, in the past, agencies received deference on their interpretations of ambiguous statutes, now non-expert judges will step in to evaluate these laws. Writing in dissent, Justice Kagan emphasized the problems with the Court’s precedent-shattering approach: “agencies are staffed with ‘experts in the field’ who bring their training to bear on open statutory questions. Consider, for example…When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a ‘protein’? I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue…But the FDA likely has scores of scientists on staff who can think intelligently about it, maybe collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer.”  Now, instead of deferring to agency experts, judges will get to step in and make these hyper-complex policy decisions. Loper Bright is a shocking repudiation of decades of administrative law and will wreak havoc on our system of government.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Ohio v. EPA 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on February 21, 2024. The case was decided on June 27, 2024. 

In Ohio v Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court reviewed a request for stay on a pioneering initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to tackle the climate crisis – the Good Neighbor Plan (“GNP”). In 2023, the EPA implemented the GNP to regulate air pollution by requiring upwind states to reduce their emissions so as not to cause air pollution in downwind states. The GNP is projected to prevent 1,300 premature deaths, 1.3 million asthma attacks, and 2,100 emergency room visits by 2026. Three upwind states regulated by this plan (Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia) sued the EPA at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to prevent the plan from going into effect. In September 2023, this request was denied, and the states subsequently requested a stay of the GNP from the Supreme Court pending the outcome of further litigation.

By 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court granted the states’ application for stay, blocking enforcement of the GNP pending the lower court proceedings. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, thereby stalls the groundbreaking and essential efforts of the EPA, and enables states to continue producing deadly air pollution, further exacerbating health issues such as asthma and lung cancer. Joined by the three liberal justices, Justice Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she reprimanded the majority for inhibiting the “enforcement of a major EPA rule based on an undeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits” and for granting relief in a “fact-intensive and highly technical case without fully engaging with both the relevant law and voluminous record.”

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America

The Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2023. The case was decided on May 16, 2024. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), created by Congress in response to the 2008 financial crisis, is an independent agency within the Federal Reserve which plays a vital role in protecting consumers from predatory lending practices. In 2018, the Community Financial Services Association of America (“CFSA”) sued the CFPB, arguing that its funding structure was unconstitutional.

By a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court rejected the CFSA’s challenge to the CFPB’s funding structure, ensuring that the bureau can continue to protect American consumers. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, explained that, under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is “simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes.” Per the Court, the CFPB’s funding structure satisfies the Appropriations Clause’s essential elements; it identifies a funding source, establishes a maximum amount to be drawn from that source, and designates the source’s purpose. Thomas further noted that Congress vested the CFPB with “significant authority” and sought to shield it from “the influence of the political branches.” Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion which Justice Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that the Dodd Frank Wall Street Act allows the “powerful” CFPB to “bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight,” conflicting with Congress’s mandate to monitor and control the use of public funds and the projects that those funds finance.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Garland v. Cargill

The Court heard oral argument in this case on February 28, 2024. The case was decided on June 14, 2024.

In 2018, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) imposed a ban on “bump stocks,” following their usage in the 2017 Las Vegas atrocity, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. To implement this ban, ATF passed a lifesaving regulation which categorized bumps stocks as machine guns and mandated their destruction or surrender. Michael Cargill, the owner of a gun store in Texas, launched a constitutional challenge to ATF’s regulation.

A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court struck down the regulation, holding that ATF surpassed its statutory authority. Justice Thomas, who wrote for the conservative majority, rooted the troubling decision in his view that bump stocks do not meet the technical definition of a “machine gun” laid out in the National Firearms Act 1934. While, as ceded by Thomas, bump stocks allow firearms to fire just as fast as machine guns, bump stocks still require the trigger to be pulled to fire meaning that they are not technically machine guns. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, issued a powerful dissent in which she rebuked the majority for their illogical ruling. Per Sotomayor, “when I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger’… because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

United States v. Rahimi

The Court heard oral argument in this case on November 7, 2023. The case was decided on June 21, 2024. 

In Rahimi, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal law which bans individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. The Court upheld the law, holding that the right to bear arms can be curtailed for those who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another.” Writing for an 8-1 majority, Chief Justice Roberts took the opportunity to clarify and restrict the “history and tradition” test emanating from the Court’s deplorable Bruen decision of 2022. When applying Bruen’s “history and tradition” test, courts must determine whether the gun regulations under review are “consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.” Rahimi clarifies that, instead of looking for a “historical twin” during this endeavor, as the Fifth Circuit did, courts should search for a “historical analogue.”

Justice Thomas, who authored Bruen, filed a fiery dissent, in which he accused the majority of giving the government a “regulatory blank check.” He maintained that post-Bruen, gun regulations must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and the government failed to establish a historical regulation justifying the statute under scrutiny. Thomas further identified Zackey Rahimi, who committed a violent assault against his partner while armed, as a “member of the political community” who must continue to have unfettered access to firearms – a deeply troubling prospect. In her concurrence, Justice Jackson shed light on the reality that lower courts are “having trouble” applying the Bruen test and underscored the importance of the highest court “promoting clarity and consistency” when administering constitutional rules.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine 

The Court heard oral argument in this case on March 26, 2024. The case was decided on June 13, 2024. 

AHM concerned access to mifepristone, a pill used in over half of all abortions in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) first approved mifepristone for use in abortions in 2000 and, in the 24 years since, has expanded access to the medication, which is also used for miscarriage treatment. After reviewing substantial evidence of the drug’s safety and efficacy, the FDA allowed mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth. Last year, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (“AHM”), a litigious anti-choice group, sued the FDA over its initial approval of the medication, as well as its recent regulations expanding mifepristone access.

In an opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court unanimously ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine did not have standing to sue the FDA. Per the Court, the plaintiff doctors did not suffer an injury due to the FDA’s actions, and therefore could not sue. The doctors did not prescribe mifepristone, suffer any financial injuries, and could only assert a nebulous moral injury related to their anti-abortion views. Such a vague injury is not sufficient for standing. Justice Thomas authored a concurrence in this case, raising his ongoing concerns with associational standing. In his view, associational standing is prohibited by the same constitutional concerns that bar third party standing.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Moyle v. United States, Idaho v. United States

The Court heard oral argument in this case on April 24, 2024. The case was decided on June 27, 2024. 

Moyle asked whether Idaho’s abortion ban preempts the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (“EMTALA”). Idaho’s extreme ban only allows physicians to provide abortion care when the life of the pregnant person is at risk, but EMTALA requires emergency room physicians to provide stabilizing care, regardless of whether the person’s life is at risk. Idaho argued that physicians can comply with both laws at the same time because physicians are obligated to stabilize the health of both the pregnant person and the unborn child, so the law does not require a physician to perform an abortion when solely the pregnant person’s health is at risk. The U.S., on the other hand, argued that Idaho’s ban is preempted by EMTALA because a physician may need to provide care under EMTALA but be prevented from doing so due to Idaho’s ban.

In a 6-3 per curiam opinion, the Court ruled that Moyle was improvidently granted, concluding that more litigation needed to occur at the lower court level before the Supreme Court could resolve the case. Moyle’s dismissal means that the lower court’s stay of Idaho’s ban will once again go into effect, allowing pregnant people to access emergency abortions in Idaho. This case is likely to make its way back to the Court in coming years, following further proceedings.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Department of State v. Muñoz

The Court heard oral argument in this case on April 32, 2024. The case was decided on June 21, 2024.

At issue in Muñoz was whether an American citizen has a fundamental liberty interest in their non-citizen spouse’s admission into the United States. Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Ascencio-Cordero, an El Salvador citizen, in 2010. Three years later, Muñoz and Asencio-Cordero travelled to the San Salvador consulate to apply for Asencio-Cordero’s immigrant visa, hoping that he could move permanently to the United States. The consular official denied the visa, claiming that they suspected Asencio-Cordero aimed to enter the U.S. to engage in unlawful activity. As a consular officer, they were not required to provide further information. The couple believed that Asencio-Cordero’s visa was denied because of his tattoos, and that the consular official incorrectly concluded that Asencio-Cordero’s tattoos meant that he was a member of the MS-13 gang. The pair sought review of the consulate’s findings, providing evidence that the tattoos were unconnected to gang membership. The consulate refused to overturn their initial ruling. Muñoz then sued the State Department, claiming that she had a fundamental liberty interest in her husband’s admission to the U.S. and the Consulate needed to provide her with a reason for her husband’s exclusion under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court ruled against Muñoz, finding that she had no such liberty interest. In an opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that U.S. citizens do not have any due process rights when it comes to the admission of their non-citizen spouse. This decision waters down the fundamental right to marriage for any American citizen with a non-citizen spouse. All it takes is one incorrect, unsupported decision by a consular official, and an American citizen can never live with their spouse in the United States. It is hard to overstate the impact this will have on thousands of American marriages. Importantly, this case has significant implications for the fundamental right to marriage writ large. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor emphasized the ways in which Muñoz conflicts with key fundamental right to marriage cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges (which legalized same sex marriage) and Loving v. Virginia (which legalized interracial marriage). We can and should be concerned that Muñoz is another step on the conservative path to overturn the fundamental right to marriage.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

The Court heard oral argument in this case on April 22, 2024. The case was decided on June 28, 2024. 

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is centered on homelessness and public space. In Grants Pass, Oregon, city ordinances prohibit camping and sleeping in public spaces, even for homeless people. This means if you’re homeless and sleep outside, you can be fined or jailed. Mr. Johnson, a homeless man, challenged these rules, arguing they criminalize homelessness, which he believes is unfair and unconstitutional. The big question is whether it’s constitutional for cities to ban homeless people from sleeping in public places when they have nowhere else to go. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that punishing homeless people for sleeping outside when no shelter is available is cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. Grants Pass appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the 6-3 majority with Sotomayor dissenting, joined by Jackson and Kagan, found that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” barred by the Eighth Amendment. As a result, the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the decision is remanded. Gorsuch writes that “Homelessness is complex” and its “causes are many.” But the Eighth Amendment, he concludes, does not give federal judges the primary job “for assessing those causes and devising those responses.” In a dissenting opinion, Sotomayor points out that “sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” and “for some people, sleeping outside is their only option.” Punishing people just for being homeless, she argues, is “unconscionable and unconstitutional,” and policies like Grants Pass’s leave them “with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.

Moore v. United States

The Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2023. The case was decided on June 20, 2024. 

Moore v. United States concerned a one-time “transition” tax on offshore corporate profits enacted as part of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts. Many viewed the case as a potential vehicle for the Court to preemptively bar a future wealth tax. In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court upheld the transition tax, finding that a tax on undistributed income is constitutional and does not violate the apportionment clause. Kavanaugh emphasized that a ruling in the Moores’ favor could “require Congress to either drastically cut critical national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it – including, of course, on ordinary Americans.” Unwilling to find that the Constitution requires such a devastating blow to Congress’s taxing power or the IRS, the majority upheld the tax. Importantly, the opinion is extremely narrow, meaning that the Court’s stance on a wealth tax remains as unclear as ever.

Read AFJ’s statement on this decision here.