Supreme Court to hear Trump immunity, abortion arguments in final sitting

On April 15, 2024, the Supreme Court will start its final scheduled session for the 2023 term, with major cases about abortion laws and former President Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution still to come.

In all, the Supreme Court justices will hear 10 sets of arguments, with Trump v. United States concluding the session on April 25. Among the other cases are a dispute about ordinances to regulate homeless people camping on public property; a question about a visa-denial process; and an appeal from three Jan. 6 riot participants over obstruction of Congress charges.

April 15, 2024

Snyder v. United States (23-108)

James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Ind., was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666, a federal antibribery law, of accepting a $13,000 gratuity after a company successfully won bids to sell garbage trucks to his city. Snyder challenged his conviction, arguing there was no quid pro quo agreement for a payment prior to the contract award. The United States has countered that the statute’s text applies to the gratuity payment. Two lower courts have sided with the United States.

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio  (23-50)

The dispute centers around a ring bought by a jewelry store owner and a third party who claimed the ring was stolen property. During a police investigation, an officer found a licensing violation at the store. The jeweler was arrested, and his property seized on charges related to the ring and the licensing charge, but the prosecution declined to take the case to a grand jury. The jeweler’s attorneys claim damages from a lack of probable cause for the stolen ring charge. The Fourth Amendment question for the Court is if the jeweler can pursue a malicious prosecution claim, when one charge was baseless and a second charge was based on probable cause.

April 16, 2024

Fischer v. United States (23-5572)

Joseph Fischer was indicted for various offenses related to his presence and involvement in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He faced multiple charges, including an allegation that his actions violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of an official proceeding including congressional proceedings. Fischer argues the obstruction statute is limited to evidence and investigations considered by Congress. A federal judge agreed with Fischer, but the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled the statute applies to “all forms of obstructive conduct.”

April 17, 2024

Thornell v. Jones (22-982)

In this capital case, Danny Lee Jones was convicted of two first-degree murder charges in Arizona and then sentenced to death after a hearing. A federal district court denied Jones’ petition for relief, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Jones did not have effective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court will consider if the Ninth Circuit violated the Supreme Court’s precedents with its methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington at Jones’ hearing.

April 22, 2024

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson  (23-175)

The city of Grants Pass, Ore., has three ordinances related to bans on camping and sleeping on public property. The violations are enforced by civil citations that can lead to a person’s exclusion from public property for a period of time. The plaintiffs argued the ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, and they asked that all involuntarily homeless individuals be certified as a class. A federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs and cited another Ninth Circuit case, Martin v. City of Boise, as confirming that due to a lack of shelter beds, the Grants Pass ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment. A deeply divided Ninth Circuit upheld the district court, which put it in conflict with rulings from several other federal circuit appeals courts, leading the Supreme Court to accept review.

Smith v. Spizzirri  (22-1218)

This case is about an interpretation of 9 U.S.C. § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Drivers filed suit against a Phoenix delivery service, claiming they were wrongly classified as independent contractors and denied benefits. The delivery company moved the dispute to federal court for arbitration. The Court is considering if the FAA allows federal trial courts to dismiss a lawsuit, rather than stay the case, when all claims are subject to arbitration. Federal courts of appeals have split on this issue.

April 23, 2024

Department of State v. Munoz  (23-334)

The Court will consider two questions related to the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ability of a consular officer to deny a visa application. In this case, a man from El Salvador married a United States citizen. The U.S. consulate in El Salvador denied the man’s visa based on the content of a body tattoo, which it considered gang related. Despite expert testimony that the tattoo did not convey that message, the consulate considered its decision as final. A federal district court upheld the consulate’s decision, but the Ninth Circuit found that the government missed a constitutionally required notification deadline, and it vacated the decision. The Supreme Court will decide if the consulate’s action impacted the rights of the man’s spouse; and if her rights were violated, whether the consulate’s notification constituted due process under the law.

Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney (23-367)

The circuit court split in this case is over the tests used by federal courts to consider temporary injunctions in labor disputes. In this case, Starbucks employees in Memphis, Tenn., attempted to join a union and claimed they were dismissed from their jobs because of the unionization effort. Starbucks said it dismissed the workers for holding an unauthorized event for the media inside a store after hours, which violated company policy. The store later unionized. A court issued a preliminary injunction after the union filed a labor dispute complaint, which an appeals court upheld. Starbucks is asking if courts must evaluate injunctions under a traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard.

April 24, 2024

Moyle v. United States (23-726) and Idaho v. United States (23-727)

In these two cases, which have been consolidated for arguments, the Court will consider the relationship between a state law related to abortion and a federal law about medical services. Idaho’s Defense of Life Act “makes it a crime for anyone to perform an abortion unless a physician acts within exceptions that the statute enumerates,” while the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires that facilities receiving Medicare funds offer “necessary stabilizing treatment” in emergencies, including medically necessary care that may result in the termination of the pregnancy. The question presented to the Court is whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.

April 25, 2024

Trump v. United States (23-939)

The Supreme Court will consider former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges related to the 2020 presidential election. After an appeals court decision gave Special Counsel Jack L. Smith the green light to initiate a conspiracy and obstruction trial against Trump, his attorneys sought a stay of that decision. The immunity case will center on one simple sentence: “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve.”

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.