Looking at the some of the opinions themselves, there were a few themes that may have particular relevance for state policymakers.

Reining in administrative agencies

Arguably the most consequential decision of the term was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case involved small fishing businesses that objected to a federal bureaucratic regulation requiring them to make room on their ships for federal observers and pay for these observers to accompany them on fishing trips. The question for the court was whether a 1984 court decision that required courts to defer to administrative agency regulations when the statutes that the regulations were based on were unclear. The court ruled 6-3 that courts must exercise their constitutional function of exercising independent legal judgment about what statutes passed by Congress mean rather than allowing agencies to substitute their own views.

A lesser-known but extremely important case, SEC v. Jarkesy, also addressed the authority of administrative agencies. In this case, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had prosecuted a defendant for securities fraud and imposed a $300,000 penalty on him and his business after a proceeding within the SEC. The court ruled that the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury applied to this prosecution, so a “defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator” rather than allowing “Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch.”

In the Loper Bright decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion that summarized well the situation addressed by the case (along with similar cases involving administrative agencies). He argued that we are in “a strange place,”

where authorities long thought reserved for Article III are transferred to Article II, where the scales of justice are tilted systematically in favor of the most powerful, where legal demands can change with every election even though the laws do not, and where the people are left to guess about their legal rights and responsibilities.

The court’s decisions on these issues during this term have been understood to incentivize Congress to write clearer statutes and to resume lawmaking rather than just oversight of executive branch lawmaking. That is true, but these cases also have significant implications for states.

The assumption of much administrative regulation is that the only way to address pressing concerns is to have federal experts make policy. States, however, are often (perhaps usually) in a better position to confront many of the matters now being decided by agencies, such as education and environmental protection. Reining in federal agencies should be taken as an invitation to states to step forward and enact policies that address concerns in a way that is suited to local conditions. Where federal regulations that drift away from federal law and become obstacles to desirable and reasonable state policies, the Supreme Court has given reassurance that courts will scrutinize those regulations and ensure that states are not kept from exercising the authority the Constitution recognizes they have.

Words matter

Many of the term’s decisions stressed a tectonic aspect of our constitutional system – the importance of the words used in our Constitution and the statutes enacted under its authority. Even in disputed decisions, justices often disagreed on results but usually took a similar approach – carefully examining the words of the law to understand and implement its meaning.

For example, in another administrative agency case, Garland v. Cargill, the Court struck down a federal regulation banning “bump stocks,” an accessory that allows for quicker firing of a rifle. Although it had previously not considered bump stocks to be illegal, in 2017, following a mass shooting, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a regulation treating bump stocks as “machineguns,” which can be prohibited under a 1934 law enacted by Congress. The court determined that the statute from which the agency claimed authority to issue its rule clearly defined machine guns in a way that would not include the way bump stocks work, the regulation was invalid.

In Fischer v. United States, the court ruled 6-3 that Congress intended two provisions of a corporate fraud law to be read together. The underlying facts involved the disruption of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Some of those involved in the disruption were charged with violating a portion of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The provision they were charged with violating imposes penalties on a person who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” The federal government construed this to criminalize all disruptions of official proceedings. The defendant said the term “otherwise” in the statute referenced the prior section which referred to destroying or concealing documents.

The court agreed with the defendant, based on “the basic logic that Congress would not go to the trouble of spelling out the list in” the first provision if the next provision were to cover all that list and much else besides. These and similar cases emphasize the importance for state legislators to write clear and understandable laws. Complex laws addressing multiple topics lead to poor results. This is not always easy in the process of give and take that occurs during a legislative session, but greater care in drafting, even if it means that fewer total bills are addressed, can lessen the need for court or agency involvement.

Parameters of state authority

The court also issued some decisions with direct implications for state lawmakers, clarifying what they can and cannot do consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

In Trump v. Anderson, the court unanimously determined that only Congress, not the states, can enforce a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies a government officer who has engaged in or assisted in an insurrection from running for a state or federal office. This arose from a Colorado Supreme Court decision that former president Donald Trump was prohibited from running for president for allegedly participating in the disruption of January 6, 2021.

The court also ruled unanimously in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which only allows private property to be taken by the government for public use and with compensation, applies to legislative bodies. In this case, a county imposed a traffic impact fee as a condition to allowing a landowner to build a single-family home on his property. He argued that the fee was far in excess of any actual impact his home would have on traffic, and the court’s decision allows his challenge to go forward.

In a 6-3 decision, City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the court allowed state and local governments to enforce laws prohibiting camping on public property. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that enforcing these laws to prevent homeless people from camping on public property violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits imposing cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court explained that the Eighth Amendment did not govern what laws could be passed, only what punishments it may impose. The punishment here – a small fine and an order not to camp in a public park – were not cruel or unusual.

Conclusion

Court opinions are not perfect, and there are surely issues the court will have to return to for clarification or correction of rulings in the future. What is heartening is the way that the court goes about its work. The justices usually find consensus, and where they do not, the opinions still often find support across philosophical divides. This reality can help bring a realization that when there are divides that may be characterized by critics as partisan, that characterization is likely unfair. With rare exceptions, the justices seem to take seriously their role to defend the integrity of our laws and to keep themselves, the other branches, and the federal government in their constitutionally prescribed lanes.