Opinions of the Court - 2020

Published Thursday, September 24, 1789

Major Court Decisions

TRUMP V. MAZARS USA, LLP

The subpoena issued to Trump’s long-term accounting firm, Mazars LLP, for various financial records to be turned over to a grand jury as part of a criminal investigation can be enforced.

Question: Does the Constitution prohibit subpoenas issued to Donald Trump’s accounting firm requiring it to provide non-privileged financial records relating to Trump (as a private citizen) and some of his businesses?

Ruling (7-2): The previous courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information.

TRUMP V. VANCE

The district attorney of New York County issued a grand jury subpoena to an accounting firm that possessed the financial records of President Donald Trump and one of his businesses. Trump asked a federal court to restrain enforcement of that subpoena, but the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed the case based on Supreme Court precedent regarding federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal prosecutions. 

Question: Does the Constitution permit a county prosecutor to subpoena a third-party custodian for the financial and tax records of a sitting president, over which the president has no claim of executive privilege?

Ruling (7-2): The court made clear that a sitting president cannot evade criminal investigations, ruling that a prosecutor in New York City can obtain President Donald Trump’s financial records including tax returns.  Article II and the Supremacy Clause neither categorically preclude, nor require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. All nine justices agreed that a President does not have absolute immunity from the issuance of a state criminal subpoena, but a seven-justice majority voted to affirm the decision of the Second Circuit below.

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME V. PENNSYLVANIA

In 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration promulgated regulations that greatly expanded the entities eligible to claim an exemption to the requirement that group health insurance plans cover contraceptive services. The new rules, which the agencies promulgated without issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking or soliciting public comment, expanded the scope of the religious exemption and added a “moral” exemption. Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules in federal district court, alleging that they violate the Constitution, federal anti-discrimination law, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Question: Did the federal government lawfully exempt religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage?

Ruling (7-2): The federal agencies had the authority under the ACA to promulgate the religious and moral exemptions and did so in a manner free of procedural defects under the APA. The court endorsed the Trump administration's plan to give employers broad religious and moral exemptions from a federal mandate that health insurance they provide employees covers women’s birth control.  The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had the authority under the ACA to promulgate the religious and moral exemptions, and they promulgated those exemptions consistent with the manner required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

CHIAFALO V. WASHINGTON

In the 2016 Presidential Election, petitioner Chiafolo and others were nominated as presidential electors for the Washington State Democratic Party. When Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine won the popular vote in Washington State, the electors were required by law to cast their ballots for Clinton/Kaine. Instead, they voted for Colin Powell for President and a different individual for Vice President. The Washington secretary of state fined the electors $1,000 each for failing to vote for the nominee of their party in violation of state law. The electors challenged the law imposing the fine as violating the First Amendment.

Question: Does a state law requiring presidential electors to vote the way state law directs or else be subject to a fine violate the electors’ First Amendment rights?

Ruling (Unanimous): A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. In the complex Electoral College system that decides the U.S. presidency, “electors” are subject to state laws that use penalties to force them to support the candidate who prevails in the state’s popular vote. 

ESPINOZA V. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

The Montana Legislature established a program that grants tax credits to those who donate to organizations that award scholarships for private school tuition. To reconcile the program with a provision of the Montana Constitution that bars government aid to any school “controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination,” the Montana Department of Revenue promulgated “Rule 1,” which prohibited families from using the scholarships at religious schools. Three mothers who were blocked by Rule 1 from using scholarship funds for their children’s tuition at Stillwater Christian School sued the Department in state court, alleging that the Rule discriminated on the basis of their religious views and the religious nature of the school they had chosen.

The Montana Supreme Court had invalidated a state tax credit for donations to organizations supporting students in private schools, solely on the ground that some schools benefiting from the program would be religious. The state court relied for its authority on a state constitutional provision that singled out religious schools for exclusion from generally available funding, however indirect. 

Question: Does a state law that allows for funding for education generally while prohibiting funding for religious schools violate the Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution?

Ruling (5-4): The majority held that the case was governed by Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, which held that excluding churches from eligibility for a generally available benefit violated the free exercise clause.

The application of the Montana Constitution’s “no-aid” provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the separation of church and state by endorsing Montana tax credits that helped pay for students to attend religious schools, a decision paving the way for more public funding of faith-based institutions. 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC V. GEE, GEE V. MEDICAL SERVICES LLC

In June 2014, Louisiana passed Act 620, which required “that every physician who performs or induces an abortion shall ‘have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.’” Several abortion clinics and doctors challenged Act 620, and while that challenge was pending in the district court, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a “nearly identical” Texas law in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH), finding that the Texas law imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion while bringing about no “health-related benefit” and serving no “relevant credentialing function.” The district court hearing the challenge to Act 620 accordingly declared Act 620 facially invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

Question: Does the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, below, upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflict with the Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt?

Ruling (5-4): The Fifth Circuit’s judgment, upholding a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at local hospitals, is reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure. 

SEILA LAW LLC V. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a civil investigative demand to the California-based firm, Seila Law. Seila Law refused to comply, so the agency petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking the court to enforce the demand. Seila Law responded by arguing that the CFPB violated the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. The district court rejected Seila Law's argument and ordered the law firm to comply. Seila Law appealed to the 9th Circuit, which affirmed the district court's order.

Question: Does the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violate the separation of powers principle? If it does, is 12 U.S.C. § 5491(c)(3) severable from the Dodd-Frank Act?

Ruling (5-4): The CFPB’s leadership by a single director removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers. The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump more authority over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency charged with protecting consumers in the financial sector, empowering him to fire its director at will and ruling that the structure it was given by Congress violated the U.S. Constitution.  The court nullified the judgment of the 9th Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings to see whether Seila Law would have to obey a CFPB document request.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Homeland Security Elaine Duke decided to terminate the DACA program. She explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recipients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal. Several groups of plaintiffs challenged Duke’s decision to rescind DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Several groups of plaintiffs challenged Duke’s decision to rescind DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. District Courts in California, New York, and the District of Columbia all ruled for the plaintiffs. 

Question: Is the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy judicially reviewable? Is DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy lawful?

Ruling (5-4): DHS’s decision to rescind the DACA program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Trump’s 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, created in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama to protect so called “dreamer” immigrants from deportation, was ruled unlawful.   

BOSTOCK V. CLAYTON COUNTY

Gerald Bostock was an employee of Clayton County, Georgia. After his employment was terminated, Bostock sued the county for discrimination because of sexual orientation. Bostock argued his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The federal district court dismissed the case and, on appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

Question: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompass discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation?

Answer (6-3): A federal law forbidding workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation.

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO V. AURELIUS INVESTMENT LLC

Case involving how the Appointments Clause found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. territories. The court ruled 9-0 to uphold the practice of presidents appointing members of the Puerto Rican Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) without confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Question: Does the Appointments Clause govern the appointment of members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico? Does the de facto officer doctrine allow courts to deny meaningful relief to successful separation-of-powers challengers who are suffering ongoing injury at the hands of unconstitutionally appointed principal officers?

Ruling (9-0): The court upheld appointments to Puerto Rico’s federally created financial oversight board that had been challenged by creditors. While the Appointments Clause constrains the appointments power even as to officers with powers and duties related to Puerto Rico, members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board are not "Officers of the United States" within the meaning of the Clause. 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF NEW YORK

The case concerned New York City’s former ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits. It was the first firearms case the court agreed to hear since 2010.

Question: Does a New York City rule banning the transportation a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the constitutional right to travel?

Ruling (6-3): The Supreme Court dismissed a National Rifle Association-backed challenge to New York City restrictions on handgun owners transporting their firearms outside the home. The petitioners' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is moot because after the Court granted certiorari, the City amended the rule, permitting the petitioners to transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside the city..

 

MODA HEALTH PLAN V. U.S., MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS V. U.S., LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH INSURANCE CO V. U.S.

The federal government must pay private health insurers $12 billion owed to them under an Obamacare provision. 

 

HERNANDEZ V. MESA

The Supreme Court barred a lawsuit against a Border Patrol agent for fatally shooting a 15-year-old Mexican boy on Mexican soil from across the border in Texas, refusing to open the door for foreign nationals to pursue civil rights cases in American courts in such incidents.


Other Cases

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta - Donor Privacy for Charities
The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that California may not require charities soliciting contributions in the state to report the identities of their major donors. SCOTUS ruled in favor of two groups that brought a First Amendment challenge to a California policy requiring nonprofits and charities operating in the state to provide the state with a list of their largest donors.

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee - Voting Rights
The Supreme Court, 6-3, rejected a voting-rights challenge to Arizona’s election laws, ruling the state may discard legal ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct even if doing so results in throwing out a much higher percentage of votes cast by Latinos, Blacks and Native Americans than whites.

Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm, Gavin - Transgender Students
The Supreme Court declined to take up the issue of whether the nation's schools must allow students to use the bathroom that match their gender identities. The court declined, without comment, to hear the case of Gavin Grimm. Grimm was born female but identified as male after his freshman year in high school, legally changing his name and beginning hormone therapy. The lower courts have stated that barring students from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity violates Title IX, an education law that prohibits sex-based discrimination.

New Hampshire v. Massachusetts - Taxing Non-resident Telecommuters

The Supreme Court denied a lawsuit filed by New Hampshire that sought to block Massachusetts from collecting income tax from N.H. residents who were employed by Massachusetts companies but had been working from home during the coronavirus pandemic.

PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey - Property Seizure

The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that natural-gas pipeline projects with federal approval can seize state-owned land, boosting PennEast Pipeline Co.’s planned 116-mile line through Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez - Immigrant Detention

The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, Immigrants awaiting a decision on whether they can stay in the U.S. after reentering the country illegally because they fear torture at home must be detained while their cases work their way through the system, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The decision affects a narrow group involved in so-called “withholding-only” removal proceedings, where the question isn’t whether the immigrant is deportable, but rather where they can be deported to, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS - Covid Eviction Moratorium

A divided U.S. Supreme Court refused to lift the federal moratorium on evictions during the Covid-19 outbreak, leaving the ban in place until the end of July. Voting 5-4, the justices rejected calls by landlords and real-estate trade associations from Alabama and Georgia to block the moratorium while their challenge goes forward. They contend the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its authority by imposing the ban.


All Cases

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December

November



 

Quick Links
National Write Your Congressman
2435 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 300
Richardson, Texas 75080
Phone: (214) 342-0299
Copyright © 2025 National Write Your Congressman