What we learned about the court this term: an animated explainer

The United States Supreme Court's October 2023 Term concluded with several landmark decisions that significantly reshaped administrative law, clarified aspects of election law, and addressed critical issues in criminal justice. Most notably, the Court overturned the long-standing *Chevron* deference doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between federal courts and administrative agencies. The term also saw a unanimous ruling on presidential eligibility under the Fourteenth Amendment and a cautious approach to the intersection of federal and state abortion laws. While the Court's conservative supermajority remained evident, the term also revealed nuanced judicial alliances and instances where ideological lines blurred, offering a complex portrait of the Court's internal dynamics and its impact on the American legal landscape.

The United States Supreme Court's October 2023 Term, which concluded in June 2024, proved to be a period of profound legal shifts and intense public scrutiny. From the intricate workings of the administrative state to the constitutional parameters of presidential eligibility and the ongoing national debate surrounding reproductive rights, the Court tackled a docket replete with high-stakes issues. This term not only delivered rulings with immediate and far-reaching consequences for legal practitioners and the public but also offered a revealing glimpse into the evolving dynamics among the nine justices.

This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the key legal developments from the October 2023 Term, analyzing the Court's major decisions, identifying dominant judicial alliances, and assessing the true nature of its ideological divisions. By examining pivotal cases, we will explore how the Court navigated complex constitutional and statutory questions, ultimately shaping the trajectory of American jurisprudence. The insights gleaned from this term are crucial for attorneys seeking to understand the current legal landscape and anticipate future trends in judicial interpretation and governmental regulation.

The term's outcomes underscore a persistent effort by the Court to redefine the scope of federal power, particularly concerning administrative agencies and the executive branch. The decisions reflect both a commitment to certain jurisprudential methodologies, such as textualism and originalism, and a pragmatic approach to politically charged issues, often resulting in unexpected alignments and narrow rulings designed to avoid broader pronouncements.

The current composition of the Supreme Court features a 6-3 conservative supermajority, a significant factor influencing its jurisprudence. This ideological alignment has been a consistent backdrop to the Court's work in recent terms, leading to expectations of rulings that favor limited government, individual liberties (as interpreted by the conservative wing), and a re-evaluation of established precedents. The October 2023 Term operated within this established framework, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett forming the conservative bloc, alongside liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

A central theme of the term involved the administrative state, a domain where the Court has increasingly asserted judicial oversight. For decades, the *Chevron* deference doctrine, established in *Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.*, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), mandated that courts defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers. This doctrine significantly empowered federal agencies in implementing congressional mandates. However, the *Chevron* framework had faced growing criticism from some justices and legal scholars, who argued it encroached upon the judiciary's role in statutory interpretation and concentrated too much power in the executive branch. The stage was set for a potential seismic shift in this area, with cases challenging *Chevron*'s continued viability prominently featured on the docket.

The October 2023 Term delivered a monumental shift in administrative law with the consolidated cases of *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce*. In a 6-3 decision, the Court, through Chief Justice Roberts, formally overruled *Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.*, eliminating the long-standing principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The majority held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding all relevant questions of law, rather than deferring to an agency's interpretation simply because a statute is ambiguous. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, empowering courts to scrutinize agency actions more closely and potentially leading to increased litigation challenging federal regulations across various sectors.

Another highly anticipated case was *Trump v. Anderson*, which addressed whether states could disqualify a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment for engaging in insurrection. The Court issued a unanimous *per curiam* opinion, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's primary ballot. The Court held that only Congress, not individual states, has the authority to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. While the outcome was unanimous, the justices diverged on the reasoning, with some concurring opinions emphasizing the narrowness of the ruling and avoiding broader constitutional questions about what constitutes an "insurrection" or whether the former President engaged in one.

The Court also grappled with the complex interplay between federal and state law concerning abortion in *Moyle v. United States*. This case questioned whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempted Idaho's restrictive abortion ban, particularly regarding emergency medical care. After oral arguments, the Court ultimately dismissed the writs of certiorari as improvidently granted, vacating its earlier stay and allowing a lower court injunction against Idaho's law to remain in effect. This decision, while avoiding a definitive ruling on the merits, highlighted the Court's cautious approach to the post-*Dobbs* legal landscape and left the critical question of EMTALA's preemptive scope largely unresolved for future litigation.

In *Snyder v. United States*, the Court narrowed the scope of a federal anti-corruption statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, which criminalizes certain payments to state and local officials. The 6-3 majority held that Section 666 prohibits bribes (payments made or agreed to *before* an official act to influence it) but does not criminalize gratuities (payments made *after* an official act as a reward, without a prior agreement). This distinction, delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, limits federal prosecutors' ability to pursue certain corruption cases, leaving the regulation of such gratuities primarily to state and local governments. The decision, split along ideological lines, drew criticism for potentially creating a loophole in anti-corruption efforts.

Throughout the term, the Court's ideological divide was often apparent, particularly in 6-3 decisions. However, the term also showcased instances of surprising alliances. For example, the unanimous decision in *Trump v. Anderson* demonstrated a consensus on the procedural aspects of federal election law, even among justices with vastly different jurisprudential outlooks. While Justices Thomas and Alito frequently aligned, as did Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan also showed a notable degree of agreement in certain cases, indicating that the Court's dynamics are more complex than a simple conservative-liberal split. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, often seen as a key swing vote within the conservative bloc, also demonstrated a pragmatic approach in several rulings, contributing to the nuanced outcomes observed this term.

The October 2023 Term of the Supreme Court will be remembered as a period of significant legal reorientation, particularly in the realm of administrative law. The overturning of *Chevron* deference marks a pivotal moment, signaling a more assertive judiciary in reviewing agency actions. Practitioners in fields heavily regulated by federal agencies must now anticipate a landscape where agency interpretations face heightened judicial scrutiny, potentially leading to increased litigation and a need for agencies to provide more robust statutory justifications for their rules.

For attorneys involved in election law and criminal defense, the rulings in *Trump v. Anderson* and *Snyder v. United States* offer important clarifications, albeit with distinct implications. While *Trump v. Anderson* provided a clear jurisdictional boundary regarding Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, *Snyder v. United States* narrowed the scope of federal anti-corruption efforts, necessitating a careful review of state and local ethics laws. The term's mixed bag of unanimous and ideologically split decisions underscores that while the Court's conservative majority is influential, the justices' individual approaches and the specific facts of each case continue to foster diverse coalitions and nuanced outcomes. Legal professionals should closely monitor the implementation of these decisions and remain vigilant for subsequent litigation that will further define their practical impact.