August 13, 2024 United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, No. 22-915 (June 21, 2024) Response by Professors Mary Anne Franks and Joan Meier Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Oct. Term 2023) Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog United States v. Rahimi: Resisting the “Suicide Pact” for Now In 1949 and again in 1963, Supreme Court Justices cautioned against treating the Constitution as a “suicide pact.” The Fifth Circuit tossed this warning aside last year when it ruled that the Constitution forbids the federal government from disarming dangerous domestic abusers subject to civil protection orders. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in United States v. Rahimi, rejecting the view that firearms laws that did not exist in some form at the time the Second Amendment was ratified are necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. Had the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, it would have meant the end of virtually all modern firearms regulation—a deadly conclusion in a country where guns kill approximately 40,000 people each year and where gun violence has become the leading cause of death of children and teenagers. But while firearm fundamentalists may have lost this particular... Read More

July 10, 2024 SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. ___, No. 22-859 (June 27, 2024) Response by Professor Richard Pierce Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Oct. Term 2023) Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog SEC v. Jarkesy: Agencies Cannot Adjudicate Most Civil Penalty Disputes The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long had the power to bring an enforcement action in court to obtain a civil penalty against someone who commits securities fraud. In the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 Congress gave the SEC the option of either bringing a civil fraud penalty action in court or assigning one of its administrative law judges (ALJ) to adjudicate a civil fraud dispute, subject to review by the SEC and a circuit court. The SEC assigned an ALJ to adjudicate its claim that Jarkesy had committed securities fraud and to decide whether to impose a civil penalty on him. The ALJ found that Jarkesy had committed securities fraud and imposed a large civil penalty on him. The SEC upheld the ALJ’s decision, and Jarkesy sought review of the SEC decision in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that the SEC adjudication violated the... Read More

On January 6, 2021, Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden's election victory. In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court controversially ruled that these actions did not violate the law against obstructing official proceedings. Professor Eliason argues this decision contradicts both the statute's plain language and common sense.

Professor Pierce discusses the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturns the Chevron deference doctrine. The ruling shifts the emphasis to independent judicial interpretation of statutes, moving away from automatic deference to agency interpretations. This change aligns with the principles of Skidmore v. Swift & Co., promoting a more nuanced approach to judicial review while still respecting agency expertise.