Final decisions of the Supreme Court

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: It’s Thursday, July 4, 2024.

It’s nice to have you in today’s edition The world and everything in itHello, my name is Lindsay Mast.

REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

First things first: final opinions.

The Supreme Court has issued 59 decisions on the merits this semester by my count… and if you listened to Legal Docket on Monday and all of our coverage this week, you heard the analysis in all but two of the decisions… which we’re getting to today with World’s legal reporter Steve West. He joins me to talk about the court’s decisions in cases involving homelessness and air quality.

Steve, good morning!

STEVE WEST: Good morning, Mary.

REICHARD: Well, let’s start with Ohio v. EPA. Remind us what the facts were in this case.

WEST: Well, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets air pollution standards for states and then requires states to develop plans to meet those targets. And so here, the EPA focused on reducing ozone pollution, which is a product of emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. And under its so-called good neighbor policy, it required states, those that were downwind of other states, to show that their emissions would not adversely affect the air downwind. So it rejected plans submitted by 21 states and then released its own plan for those states and two others that had not submitted plans. Three of those states, as well as some companies, challenged the federal plan and asked a lower court to stay it while the litigation proceeded. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refused, so they went to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis to ask for a stay.

REICHARD: And they got that too, in a 5-4 ruling, the court granted a stay. That means the EPA’s plan is on hold while the D.C. Circuit determines the validity of the rule without harming industry in the meantime. Did anything jump out at you in the majority opinion to suspend that good neighbor policy?

WEST: I think this case should also be viewed in the context of the court’s decision last week to overturn Chevron doctrine, the principle that courts defer to reasonable interpretations of the law by agencies, and also the principle that allows for a broad expansion of regulatory authority. So here again, in this case, the court took a closer look at what agencies are doing. On the other hand, the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by three liberal justices, may be a signal that she will not be as hard on agencies as perhaps other conservative justices.

REICHARD: Well, we’ll have to keep an eye on that. Well, moving on to City of Grants Pass vs. Johnsonour colleague Jenny Rough covered the oral arguments in this case, but Steve, you also wrote a summary of this case when it was argued in April. What were some of the issues that stood out to you?

WEST: Well, a series of rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have made it virtually impossible for Western cities to do anything about homeless encampments. It’s creating more crime, more disease and more safety problems for people living in cities. Grants Pass, Oregon, has a population of about 38,000, and officials there have been trying to deal with a homeless population of about 600. They’re camping in public parks, on sidewalks and under bridges.

REICHARD: Okay, so who sued whom and on what grounds?

WEST: Well, two people, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, who are homeless, sued, represented by a group of attorneys from Georgetown School of Law, on the grounds that the restrictions on public camping violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

REICHARD: What was the district court’s ruling in this case?

WEST: The district court agreed and ruled that punishing someone for sleeping outside when there were no beds available in a shelter is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, meaning that the number of homeless people exceeds the number of beds available, but that depends on how the number of beds is counted. The beds in a religious shelter were not included in the bill because the court found it violated the First Amendment to condition shelter for a homeless person on attendance at a religious service or other faith-based requirement. But the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by a 6-3 majority. The majority found that laws restricting camping and sleeping in public places are neither cruel nor unusual punishment. They said that’s not what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they included the Eighth Amendment.

REICHARD: I also read the opinion. It pointed out that it’s a stretch to call cruel limited fines and a maximum of 30 days in prison after repeated warnings. Cruelty is usually defined as the infliction of terror, pain or dishonor. Fines and prison time are not uncommon either. That’s the usual way to punish for criminal offenses. I wonder, Steve, did any of the judges notice the exclusion of religious shelters from the number of beds available?

WEST: Yes, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the city’s Gospel Rescue Mission. He noted that the religious nature of a shelter is sometimes a reason for a homeless person to refuse to go there, but he doesn’t answer the question of why a practical solution is ignored because it’s not really before the court.

REICHARD: Okay, so much for the opinion analysis. We did it!

I will say that it was an exciting term, especially considering the way the court resolved Chevron respect…making federal agencies realize they can’t fill gaps where Congress isn’t clear. Are there rulings that have disappointed you?

WEST: Well, I was a little disappointed this semester from a liberty perspective. I wasn’t encouraged by the fact that the court didn’t address some of the social media cases that were before it in the context of regulating social media, or by the Biden administration’s attempts to encourage or even force social media to remove certain posts. But I think you hit the nail on the head. Chevron. This may be the most far-reaching ruling of the term, with the longest lasting effect. I think the alarmist cries that this will paralyze the government are over the top, but there’s no doubt that it will deter agencies and presidents from issuing regulations. Just one example that I’m seeing is the Biden administration trying to rewrite Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education. They want it to include sexual orientation and gender identity. I just don’t think that’s going to pass under this new rule.

REICHARD: I agree. Well, to sum up, the Supreme Court will be dealing with some important issues in the next term. What cases will you be watching?

WEST: Well, I have two cases in mind. One is a court review of Tennessee and Kentucky laws that protect minors from harmful sex-change procedures and surgeries. Another is a review of a Texas law that requires porn sites to verify a user’s age and try to keep pornography out of the hands of children.

REICHARD: That was a long summary of those two issues. Well, Steve West is a lawyer at WORLD and the editor of the Liberties newsletter. Steve, thank you very much for your time and Happy Independence Day.

WEST: Yes, let us be thankful for the blessings of freedom. Happy Independence Day, Mary!

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on an urgent basis. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or corrected in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The most reliable record of the WORLD Radio program is the audio recording.