Final 15 cases (13 decisions) of the Supreme Court 2023 term

Down to the final 15 cases (13 decisions) of the Supreme Court 2023 term. The Supreme Court has already added Wednesday, June 26 as an opinion day and will likely add the 27th and 28th as well. Here are the remaining cases.

By far the most important is Jarkesy, a crucial 7th Amendment case and the Chevron Deference cases.

The Supreme Court likes to be done by the end of June, so I think they will make an effort to release all 13 opinions by the end of next week.

I will add some commentary on Jarkesy immediately following its entry on the list below.

August sitting


November sitting


December sitting

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 [Arg: 11.29.2023]

Issue(s): (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

Commentary: The Supreme Court can and should decide this case on Question 1 alone. And the answer to that question should be a resounding yes. Essentially, the SEC has made itself police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. It appoints its own administrative judges who have every motivation to rule in favor of their bosses at the SEC. By answering Question 1 in the affirmative, the SEC inhouse courts would be dissolved and the SEC would be required to try all cases in the Article III Courts, in the presence of a jury if requested by the defendant. This would not abridge the SEC’s enforcement and rule making power in any way. It would just give defendants a fair forum in which to defend themselves, as ALL Americans deserve. Answering Question 1 in the affirmative essentially moots Questions 2 & 3 and thus it is not necessary for the Supreme Court to answer them.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124 [Arg: 12.4.2023]

Issue(s): Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

January sitting

Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219 [Arg: 1.17.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 [Arg: 1.17.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

February sitting

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22-1008 [Arg: 2.20.2024]

Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule — regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date — or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved.”

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A349 [Arg: 2.21.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22-277 [Arg: 2.26.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 22-555 [Arg: 2.26.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

March sitting

Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411 [Arg: 3.18.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.

Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, No. 23-250 [Arg: 3.25.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.

April sitting

Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 [Arg: 4.15.2024]

Issue(s): Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.

Fischer v. U.S., No. 23-5572 [Arg: 4.16.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, No. 23-175 [Arg: 4.22.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Moyle v. U.S., No. 23-726 [Arg: 4.24.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.

Trump v. U.S., No. 23-939 [Arg: 4.25.2024]

Issue(s): Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

They really are sitting on the Trump decision.

Pretty much.

1 Like

We now officially have three opinion days scheduled, the 26th, 27th and 28th.

Hopefully they will finish on the 28th.

I wonder if they will grant some immunity and then get the hell outta dodge because they know it will be controversial.

1 Like

Wasn’t that the case with Obamacare decision in 2012 ? i.e. late term decision and then school’s out for the summer ?

I don’t think they will grant blanket immunity. I think they will grant some limited immunity.

1 Like

Murthy v Missouri social media case dismissed for lack of standing, 6 to 3. Barrett writing for the court, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissenting.

More opinions expected this morning.

Snyder v United States 18 USC 666 does NOT criminalize gratuities (which are basically bribes AFTER the fact) to public officials. 6 to 3, with Kavanaugh writing for the court with Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.

This is the final opinion of the day.


Looks like the term may go into July.

I’m pretty sure (IMHO) that the court will find some immunity.

The President should absolutely have positional immunity for actions performed within the scope of the duties of the Office of President.

Actions taken to further their own personal interests and their reelection campaign? Not so much.


1 Like

It does seem odd thought that they will likely rule that the immunity question that was placed before them will be denied… because immunity surrounding campaigns and elections is absurd… but they are going to rule on questions of immunity that was not brought to them also.

Seems like they are going against their own ethos of calling balls and strikes about the questions brought to them.

Sounds logical to me. The challenge is the mental gymnastics some will do to show that something connected to reelection campaigns or personal interests actually falls within the purview of scope of duties for POTUS.

Has there been any cases where the three libs did not vote together?

1 Like

Yes. Not all decisions are political (in the sense that they effect day to day politics and in fact i would say many are not) so they disagree in those. But no not often.

Thanks I can’t recall any.

1 Like

There were only two i believe in the past two years or so.

Looks like the Supreme Court approves of censorship :upside_down_face:

Another bail out by SCOTUS to answer the question. I feel if they accept the case they should rule on the case. Shouldn’t be a “they didn’t have standing” bail out. Who cares if the person who brought had standing or not. If it is a legitimate question answer it. Answer the question that is what you are paid for.

Because it would allow anyone to bring a suit. The scouts isn’t just a place to figure things out for us. It has to be restricted as to when it can actually render a decision on the merits

A liberal court that renders decisions where the plaintiffs had no standing would not be accepted either.

1 Like

Then they shouldn’t accept the case.