Multiple Cases with Potential Local Effects

This article is part of MACo’s Policy Deep Dive series, where expert policy analysts explore and explain the top county policy issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Policy Deep Dives.

---

The 2023-2024 US Supreme Court term covered a wide array of cases, and a particularly significant amount affected local governments either directly or peripherally. The more specific impact came from cases involving unhoused individuals sleeping in public, rules about social media behavior for elected officials, employment claims, and impact fees, which were just a few of the topics. Some of the more universal decisions were concerning decades-old judicial deference as well as how state and local governments can regulate social media companies and guns.

Subjects of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order May Not Own Guns – United States v. Rahimi

This ruling is the first statement on gun laws from the Supreme Court since the Bruen It is a glimpse into what the current court will be willing to let stand with regard to state and local gun restrictions after Bruen effectively struck down by hundreds of state and local laws. This decision essentially provides lower courts more guidance in weighing local gun regulations against the new Bruen test, which requires that gun laws be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

A number of justices authored concurring opinions to elaborate on their personal viewpoints in Rahimwhich seemed to signal that the Bruen The ruling is not clear enough to effectuate any consistency in lower courts. Additional cases could be forthcoming as the Supreme Court is currently considering other petitions for review, asking it to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment, including a challenge to an Illinois law and three municipal ordinances that seek to regulate assault weapons and high- capacity magazines.

Local Effect: Multiple local and state gun regulations in Maryland have been overturned since the Bruen The ruling. The Rahim ruling and the multiple concurring opinions on the case will give state and local governments a better understanding of what types of gun regulations could stand in the wake of the Bruen decision as they go back to the drawing board on gun regulation.

_____

Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies Lose Primary Authority Over Regulation – Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

For disputes concerning the regulatory power of government agencies, the Supreme Court decided that courts will have primary control over the interpretation of regulatory statutes. This ruling upends one of the most invoked cases of judicial precedent of the last 40 years (the so-called “Chevron deference”) and shifts power away from policy makers and regulatory agencies to judges and court officials.

Local Effect: If a local government passes a new law, then the local agency, with subject matter jurisdiction, will build out the regulatory framework to implement and enforce the new law. Prior to the Raymond ruling, if a disgruntled resident, business, organization, and the like, challenged the regulation, then a federal court would typically rely on the agency interpretation of the law to settle the matter, especially if it is highly technical and nuanced, or the court found that the administrative interpretation was without merit. With this new ruling, federal courts will no longer be compelled to defer to the agency, instead relying on their own knowledge to make a policy call or distinction in the matter.

The specific effects in Maryland are not seen to be particularly impactful as the Maryland courts have historically considered the level of deference applied to a particular case on a sliding scale subject to the facts of the case. While in some cases matters of statutory interpretation at the federal level have carried over into Maryland state courts, this is not necessarily the case with the Raymond decision.

_____

State Regulation of Social Media Companies…Doesn’t Get Clarified – Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton

The Supreme Court essentially decided not to make a clear statement in the NetChoice cases as to the ability of state and local governments to regulate how social media companies regulate and control content on their platforms. With a number of lower court cases each containing decided divergent concerns and fact patterns, the court sent the decision back to the states. This ruling concerns all types of regulation, not only how the speech of a user if regulated by the platform but also how content is organized by algorithms for children and other vulnerable users.

Local Effect: Maryland lawmakers have mandated their own regulations to protect children from the adverse health effects of using social media platforms. The significant increase in mental health needs of younger generations has been partly attributed to social media use. This disproportionately increases the demand on public health services provided by local health departments, schools, and human service and public safety divisions.

_____

Owners of Compromised Pharmaceutical Companies Will Not Be Shielded From Civil Liability in Opioid Cases – Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

In this case the Supreme Court ruled that members of the Sackler family (owners of Purdue Pharma, makers of oxycontin) could not be shielded from civil lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis as part of a bankruptcy settlement. A number of company owners have to avoid further civil judgments and liability associated with their involvement in the opioid crisis, by shielding themselves from further claims as part of a bankruptcy settlement. Those owners looking to barter similar arrangements as the Sackler family will now be restricted from doing so.

Local Effect: Billions of dollars from these settlements have begun making their way to state and local governments in an effort to help remediate the damage caused by the opioid crisis. Government agencies are a primary mechanism to help community members recover. Any effort to minimize the amount of money going towards those efforts will have an adverse impact on the work of local governments can do to support communities still reeling from the damage. Lack of settlement funds will disproportionately affect the amount of money local agencies have in the remediation process while facing growing challenges.

_____

Title VII Employment Claims Require Less Substantial Proof – Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

The Supreme Court in this case revised the standards by which an employee can bring and settle an adverse employment action against their employer. The opinion reversed the outcome of a prior court decision and lowered the bar for employees to bring Title VII discrimination claims.

Local Effect: For many local governments, public safety, and emergency response personnel may experience occasional lateral transfers and reassignments. The weakens the requirements for demonstrating an adverse employment action thus potentially exposing local governments to increased claims and additional liability.

_____

Local Impact Fees Are Fine But Must Comply With Earlier Ruling – Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA.

The Supreme Court ruled that legislatively enacted impact fees by local governments for development are permissible and do not require heightened scrutiny. The fees must however bear a relationship to the government’s interest and the potential impact on the community.

Local Effect: Local governments may continue to assess local impact fees without an increased burden of proof as a result of the nature and scope of the impact. Governments can, however, anticipate challenges by litigants on impact fees to ensure compliance with the existing Nollan and Dolan requirements. Therefore, all such legislatively imposed impact fees are in compliance would be prudent but otherwise no major changes are expected to the way Maryland currently operates on these.

_____

Elected Officials Can Block on Social Media In Some Circumstancesdances – O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said public officials can block social media users, unless the official is purported to be exercising authority to speak on behalf of the government. The opinion set a clearer standard for distinguishing when an elected person is acting in an official capacity or a personal one. However, the justices did not clarify how this new standard would apply to the facts of a particular case, leaving those decisions up to the lower courts.

Local Effect: Council members, executives, and local government officials are allowed to block abusive users from accessing them on social media provided the page they are restricting is not used for government business. The distinction in these cases can be clarified by lower courts.

_____

Penalties for Sleeping in Public Found to Be Constitutional – City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

The Supreme Court found that policies regarding an individual’s right to sleep in public should be decided by state and local governments rather than the courts. There was some indication from a few justices expressing that the grounds on which the originating policy was challenged were tenuous, and there could be other arguments that help substantiate boundaries on these types of ordinances in the future.

Local Effect: County governments retain the authority to decide matters locally for addressing homeless encampments and unhoused individuals. How these policies are interwoven with community based resources and services will have implications for any further contests.