On a sweeping Supreme Court day, a trio of rulings that will affect millions of lives
| Austin, Texas; Boston; and Pasadena, Calif.
Another landmark term at the U.S. Supreme Court neared its end Friday with a trio of decisions expected to transform the lives of millions of Americans.
In rulings described as 鈥減rofound鈥� and 鈥渟weeping,鈥� the high court weighed in on homelessness, government regulatory power, and Jan. 6 prosecutions.
In one decision, the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness don鈥檛 violate the U.S. Constitution. In another, the court overturned a 40-year-old precedent governing how federal agencies can issue regulations. And in its final decision, the justices vacated an obstruction charge the federal government has filed against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants 鈥� including former President Donald Trump.聽
Why We Wrote This
The three Supreme Court decisions issued Friday alone would qualify as a history-making term. And the court is not yet done, with arguably the biggest case coming Monday.
The already blockbuster term is not yet over. Arguably the biggest case of them all, concerning whether Mr. Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution, is expected to be decided on Monday. But today鈥檚 rulings are momentous on their own terms.
Can cities criminalize sleeping outside? The justices weigh in on homelessness.
The on Friday came in a complex and emotional case concerning homelessness in a small Oregon town.
The town, Grants Pass, had enacted an ordinance that made it criminal to sleep in public 鈥� including in your car. In a 6-3 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the Supreme Court said that the ordinance doesn鈥檛 constitute 鈥渃ruel and unusual punishment鈥� under the Eighth Amendment.
The case posed hard questions, and it pitted a variety of different interest groups against each other.
The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass 鈥� a town with just 鈥� criminalized them for behavior they couldn鈥檛 avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.
The ruling is expected to have broad and immediate consequences for cities, particularly in the West. Hanging over it all, experts say, is the feeling that it brings the U.S. no closer to truly addressing the causes of its homelessness crisis.
鈥淗omelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,鈥� wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion.
The Eighth Amendment, he added, 鈥渟erves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this nation鈥檚 homelessness policy.鈥�
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority for permitting localities to criminalize sleep, which she described as 鈥渁 biological necessity.鈥�
鈥淚t is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles,鈥� she added. But the majority instead 鈥渇ocuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.鈥�
Some see the decision as removing an unnecessary restriction on the multifaceted approaches cities can take to addressing homelessness. In a statement, Timothy Sandefur, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, called it 鈥渢he first step toward a sensible approach to the many problems of homelessness.鈥�
Because of their complexity, 鈥渃ities can only address these problems on a case-by-case basis,鈥� he added. The Supreme Court decision 鈥渆nables local communities to find actual solutions for the people who are suffering.鈥�
But legal experts and advocates for the homeless worry that the decision will encourage a more punitive approach to managing homelessness at the expense of other solutions 鈥� which could exacerbate the crisis.
鈥淚t sets a really dangerous precedent,鈥� says Jennifer Hanlon Wigon, executive director of Women鈥檚 Lunch Place, a shelter in Boston.
鈥淚t鈥檚 shifting the focus to law enforcement from human services,鈥� she adds.
Experts worry that cities will now implement camping bans even when they don鈥檛 have to, creating more barriers to getting out of homelessness. Accumulated, unpaid fines and a criminal record make it hard, for instance, to get a driver鈥檚 license and can be used by landlords to deny housing.
鈥淭here needs to be [a] wider reflection on the causes of homelessness and how we should be addressing this,鈥� says Claire Herbert, associate professor of sociology at the University of Oregon.
Another consequence may be that homeless populations will move to communities that do not enforce camping bans, or have more resources, overloading them, she says. Police, too, will have to enforce the bans at the expense of other issues.
鈥淭he solutions to homelessness have always been clear, and this is not it,鈥� says Margot Kushel, director of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative at the University of California, San Francisco. The Supreme Court ruling 鈥渋s sweeping. It is extreme. It is cruel.鈥�
In the guise of saying that judges aren鈥檛 the right people to engage in homelessness, 鈥渢he court is entirely ducking the hard questions about the law,鈥� says Clare Pastore, a law professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.
And, she adds, 鈥渢his is not going to end litigation over homelessness, if that鈥檚 what the court thinks it鈥檚 doing.鈥�
What is the Chevron doctrine, and why should you care that it鈥檚 been overturned?
The Supreme Court鈥檚 second decision was decades in the making. Its consequences, which will become clearer in the coming months, have the potential to shape almost every aspect of American life for decades to come.聽
In 1984, the high court issued a landmark decision holding that federal courts must defer to a government agency鈥檚 interpretation of an ambiguous statute. That ruling, known as the Chevron doctrine, became a cornerstone for how all federal agencies issue regulations.聽
In recent decades, groups seeking to curb the regulatory power of federal agencies have repeatedly challenged Chevron in court. On Friday, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, they succeeded.
In another 6-3 ruling divided along ideological lines, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, writing that the doctrine usurped the foundational role of the courts to decide if an agency is acting within its legal authority.
While appreciating that laws may not always be clear, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority , the Framers envisioned 鈥渢hat the final 鈥榠nterpretation of the laws鈥� would be 鈥榯he proper and peculiar province of the courts.鈥�
鈥淭he only way to 鈥榚nsure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion,鈥� is for the Court to leave Chevron behind,鈥� he added.
Importantly, Chief Justice Roberts noted that the decision does not affect past cases, and that courts would need to provide a 鈥渟pecial justification鈥� for overturning them.
In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan blasted her colleagues for 鈥渄estroy[ing] one doctrine of judicial humility鈥� and 鈥渕aking a laughing-stock of a second.鈥� She was referring to settled law, or stare decisis, a doctrine holding that the Supreme Court should respect prior decisions unless they are fundamentally wrong.
With its decision in Loper, 鈥渁 rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris,鈥� wrote Justice Kagan. 鈥淭he majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.鈥�
In a separate concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch disputed the notion that the high court is accruing more power for itself, writing that the court 鈥渉as refused to apply Chevron deference since 2016.鈥�
But critics see the ruling as part of a broader effort by conservative activists 鈥� aided by a sympathetic Supreme Court 鈥� to transfer regulatory power from federal agencies to the courts. On Thursday, for example, it rolled back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to impose civil penalties for fraud. Instead, federal regulators would need to seek a jury trial.
The high court has sided with federal agencies on occasion, including earlier this term when it upheld the funding mechanism of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But the prevailing trend has seen the court chip away at the powers of the so-called 鈥渁dministrative state.鈥�
With the overturning of Chevron, 鈥渢he primary impact would be to make the powerful more powerful and make the powerless more powerless,鈥� says David Doniger, the Natural Resources Defense Fund attorney who argued the original Chevron case 40 years ago.
Two years ago, the court issued a decision that fleshed out what it calls the major questions doctrine. The doctrine holds that federal agencies can鈥檛 take major actions without clear direction in law from Congress, with courts deciding which actions are 鈥渕ajor.鈥�
Critics of the administrative state argue that it puts too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats.
鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a decisive victory for the separation of powers, ending a doctrine that impermissibly granted the Executive Branch the power to judge the scope of its own authority,鈥� said Thomas Berry, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, in a statement.
Supporters of the administrative state claim that power is now being put in the hands of unelected and unaccountable federal judges.
Overturning Chevron is a 鈥渃onvulsive shock to the legal system,鈥� says Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
鈥淭he implications of the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision here would mean it is far more difficult for our country to protect the millions of people who want to ensure that our food is safe to eat, that we have clean air for our children, safe water, that aircraft and automobiles are safe. It is a really serious pivot from having the ability to ensure basic protections for people鈥檚 lives.鈥�
The Loper decision represents the heaviest blow yet to the regulatory power of federal agencies. It has the potential to have sweeping effects on American life 鈥� evidenced by groups as varied as the AFL-CIO and Washington expressing concerns about it.
The ruling 鈥渋s profound,鈥� says Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
鈥淚t impacts all regulations from our federal government,鈥� she adds. 鈥淚t means toy safety, it means those things impacting our financial markets ... every agency that promulgates rules could be impacted by this decision.鈥�
A Jan. 6 defendant gets a bipartisan win
In its final decision Friday, the Supreme Court weighed in on the second of three cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
This term represents the first time the justices have had to grapple with the fallout from that day, when hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 election.
Earlier this term, the court ruled unanimously that Mr. Trump could remain on the 2024 presidential ballot despite his alleged involvement. On Friday, the court vacated an obstruction charge that the Justice Department had filed against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including Mr. Trump himself.聽
The provision of the law at issue, enacted as part of a 2002 financial reform law responding to the Enron scandal, imposes criminal charges on anyone who 鈥渙therwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.鈥� A conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
In another 6-3 ruling 鈥� though one that didn鈥檛 fall along ideological lines 鈥� the Supreme Court said that the government 鈥渕ust establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.鈥�
While the case stemmed from Jan. 6, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority that the government鈥檚 interpretation of the law would criminalize not only serious conduct but also 鈥渁 broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.鈥�
In a concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson 鈥� a member of the court鈥檚 liberal wing and a former public defender 鈥� wrote that the mob 鈥渋nflicted a deep wound on this nation,鈥� but that the case 鈥渋s not about the immorality of those acts.鈥�
鈥淥ur commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis,鈥� she added.
In a dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett 鈥� a member of the court鈥檚 conservative supermajority 鈥� countered that the obstruction law is intentionally 鈥渁 very broad provision.鈥�
鈥淓vents like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them,鈥� she wrote.
The majority, she added, 鈥渄oes textual backflips to find some way 鈥� any way 鈥� to narrow the reach of鈥� the law.
The Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Fischer v. U.S. may have a limited impact, however.
About a quarter of the roughly 1,400 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with breaking the obstruction law, according to a of NPR data. Only 26 defendants have been convicted solely of breaking that statute, and 71 charged under the statute are awaiting trial, according to Just Security.
Furthermore, federal judges and prosecutors have already been planning for this development, The New York Times . The Justice Department says there are no defendants currently facing solely the obstruction charge. Some judges have signaled that they would increase sentences for other charges if the obstruction charge weren鈥檛 available.
鈥淥n the whole, I think it鈥檚 a fairly muted impact on the Jan. 6 cases,鈥� says Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.
鈥淭here will be a handful of Jan. 6 defendants who all possibly have new trials or will [have their cases] resettled,鈥� he adds, 鈥渂ut it is a very small sliver.鈥�
Editor's Note:聽Claire Herbert's title has been corrected. She is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oregon.
