Constitutional Law

Two SCOTUS justices cited Volokh in a decision, and Justice Gorsuch referenced an amicus brief Volokh wrote.

The court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises has enormous implications for environmental law and prospective climate action. While agencies and courts are digesting the ruling, there are four initial takeaways for environmental law.

In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided Moore v. United States. The Petitioners in Moore challenged of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (“MRT”), a provision of the international-tax regime of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”).

In response to the prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith on federal charges arising out of the 2020 election and the events of January 6, 2021, President Trump claimed that as president he was entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution. After losing in the district court and court of appeals, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

CNN

In three consolidated lawsuits, Alabama voters are currently challenging the state’s most recently enacted Congressional map, arguing that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case brought in separate actions by the state of Texas, a biological mother, and non-Native American adoptive and potential adoptive parents challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

The Supreme Court just issued a significant environmental law ruling in Sackett v. EPA, ruling against the EPA’s authority to regulate certain wetlands under the Federal Clean Water Protection Act.  The Court’s holding is a massive disappointment for environmentalists.

The Supreme Court has taken an enthusiastic role in enforcing free speech guarantees. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court made clear that customized website design is “pure speech,” and that free speech protections trump antidiscrimination law, even when the speaker is acting in the marketplace.

The courts have long applied a presumption against the extraterritorial reach of US law. While Congress can use domestic laws to regulate conduct outside of the United States, such regulation is not generally the norm.