The U.S. Supreme Court has been in the spotlight this term, not only for its rare display of unanimity in 27 decisions but also for the controversies surrounding Justices Alito and Thomas. Accusations of borderline criminal behavior have marred the reputations of these conservative stalwarts, raising questions about the Court’s integrity and impartiality. Despite these controversies, the Court managed to find common ground on several key issues, demonstrating a core of consensus that transcends ideological divides.
Justices Alito and Thomas have faced severe criticism and legal scrutiny over alleged misconduct. Justice Alito has been implicated in multiple instances of undisclosed financial dealings with wealthy benefactors, which many argue could constitute a conflict of interest. Similarly, Justice Thomas has been criticized for failing to report luxury trips and gifts from influential political donors. These revelations have sparked calls for stricter ethical standards and greater transparency within the nation’s highest court.
Despite the turmoil, the Supreme Court delivered several unanimous decisions that reflect a shared commitment to upholding core legal principles. One of the term’s most significant rulings, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, saw the Court affirming the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear constitutional challenges against the FTC and SEC without requiring plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies first (Holland & Knight, 2024).
In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, the Court ruled that the Takings Clause applies equally to fees imposed by legislatures, protecting property owners’ rights against undue financial burdens (SCOTUSblog, 2024). This decision underscored the Court’s dedication to safeguarding property rights against legislative overreach.
Devillier v. Texas further illustrated the Court’s commitment to individual rights. The justices allowed property owners to seek redress under the Takings Clause, even in the absence of a specific legislative cause of action, reinforcing the accessibility of constitutional protections (Ballotpedia, 2024).
In a notable Fourth Amendment case, Caniglia v. Strom, the Court unanimously ruled that the “community caretaking” exception does not extend to homes, thereby protecting individuals from warrantless home entries by law enforcement (SCOTUSblog, 2024). This decision highlighted the justices’ shared dedication to privacy rights.
The case of Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre saw the Court allowing a lawsuit by a man placed on the No Fly List to proceed, rejecting the government’s argument of mootness. This ruling emphasized the importance of due process, even in national security matters (SCOTUSblog, 2024).
In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. FDA et al., the Court upheld the FDA’s authority in the drug approval process, a decision praised for maintaining scientific and evidence-based standards in public health policy (Arthritis Foundation, 2024).
The ruling in United States v. Paul Erlinger mandated a unanimous jury for recidivism punishments under the Armed Career Criminal Act, reinforcing the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial (JURIST, 2024).
These decisions reflect the Supreme Court’s ability to rise above internal and external pressures, finding consensus on issues that deeply impact American society. The rare unanimity observed this term serves as a beacon of the Court’s potential to function cohesively, even amidst scandal and controversy.
Unanimous Supreme Court Decisions, 2024 Term
| Case Name | Decision Date | Docket Number | Brief Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission | June 13, 2024 | 22-704 | Federal courts can hear constitutional challenges against FTC and SEC without administrative exhaustion. |
| Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California | June 13, 2024 | 23-367 | Takings Clause applies to fees imposed by legislatures, protecting property rights. |
| Devillier v. Texas | April 16, 2024 | 22-913 | Property owners can seek redress under the Takings Clause without specific legislative cause. |
| Caniglia v. Strom | May 23, 2024 | 22-482 | “Community caretaking” exception does not extend to homes, protecting against warrantless entries. |
| Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre | March 19, 2024 | 22-1013 | Lawsuit by man on No Fly List can proceed; government’s mootness argument rejected. |
| Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. FDA et al. | June 13, 2024 | 23-235 | Reaffirmed FDA’s authority in drug approval process. |
| United States v. Paul Erlinger | June 21, 2024 | 23-418 | Unanimous jury required for recidivism punishments under Armed Career Criminal Act. |
| Elster v. Vidal | June 13, 2024 | 22-704 | Allowed registration of “Trump too small” trademark. |
| Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | June 13, 2024 | 23-367 | Starbucks employees in Memphis fired for unionizing efforts. |
| Connelly v. United States | June 6, 2024 | 23-146 | Valuation of shares for estate tax purposes. |
| Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe | June 6, 2024 | 23-250 | Indian tribe allowed to administer healthcare services under self-determination contract. |
| Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. | June 6, 2024 | 22-1079 | Insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos product manufacturers. |
| Thornell v. Jones | May 30, 2024 | 22-982 | Conviction for multiple murders upheld. |
| Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. | May 30, 2024 | 22-529 | Dispute over mortgage loans and required home mortgage insurance. |
| National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo | May 30, 2024 | 22-842 | First Amendment case involving NRA and New York Department of Financial Services. |
| Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP | May 23, 2024 | 22-807 | Case on redrawing congressional districts in South Carolina. |
| Brown v. United States | May 23, 2024 | 22-6389 | Interpretation of Armed Career Criminal Act with regard to state drug convictions. |
| Coinbase v. Suski | May 23, 2024 | 23-3 | Dispute over arbitration agreements in user contracts with Coinbase. |
| Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America | May 16, 2024 | 22-448 | Constitutionality and authority of CFPB in enforcing regulations. |
| Smith v. Spizzirri | May 16, 2024 | 22-1218 | Allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. |
| Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama | May 9, 2024 | 22-585 | Legality of Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture practices. |
| McIntosh v. United States | April 17, 2024 | 22-7386 | Sentencing guidelines and procedures for drug-related offenses. |
| Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri | April 17, 2024 | 22-193 | Employment discrimination and retaliation claims. |
| Rudisill v. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs | April 16, 2024 | 22-888 | Veterans’ benefits and service-connected disability claims. |
| Raul Labrador, Attorney General of Idaho v. Pam Poe | April 15, 2024 | 23a763 | Constitutionality of Idaho’s abortion laws and parental consent requirements. |
| Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street | April 12, 2024 | 23-51 | Labor law disputes involving union rights and employer practices. |
| Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners | April 12, 2024 | 22-1165 | Shareholder rights and fiduciary duties in corporate governance. |
References
- Holland & Knight. (2024). Supreme Court’s 9-0 Ruling Paves Way for Constitutional Challenges to Administrative Proceedings. Retrieved from Holland & Knight.
- SCOTUSblog. (2024). Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute. Retrieved from SCOTUSblog.
- Ballotpedia. (2024). Devillier v. Texas. Retrieved from [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Devillier_v._