Supreme Court’s final decisions

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

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Lindsay Mast.

REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

Up first: final opinions.

The Supreme Court issued 59 rulings by my count in merits cases this term…and if you’ve been listening to Legal Docket on Monday and all of our midweek coverage, you’ve heard analysis in all the decisions except two…which we get to today with World’s legal reporter Steve West. He joins me to talk about the court’s decisions in cases about 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 that case.

WEST: Well, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets air pollution standards for the states and then requires states to come up with plans for meeting the goals it set. And so here, the EPA was focused on reducing ozone pollution, a product of emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. And under what's called a Good Neighbor Policy, it required states, those that were upwind of other states, to show that their emissions would not negatively impact air downwind. So it rejected plans submitted by 21 states and then published its own plan for those states and two others that didn't submit plans. Three of those states, and some companies as well, challenged the federal plan and asked the court below to put it on hold while litigation continued. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals declined to do that, so they came to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis, asking for a stay.

REICHARD: And they got it, too, in a 5-4 ruling, the court granted the 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. Anything stick out to you about the majority opinion to stay that Good Neighbor policy?

WEST: I think you also have to look at this case in conjunction with the court's decision a week ago to overturn the Chevron doctrine, a rule that said courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of the law, and one that's allowed for a broad expansion of regulatory power. So here too, in this case, the court has taken a harder look at what agencies do. And then, on the other hand, the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion joined by three liberal justices may signal that she's not going to be as hard on agencies as perhaps the other conservative justices may be.

REICHARD: Well, we'll have to keep an eye on that then. Well, turning now to City of Grants Pass v Johnson, our colleague Jenny Rough covered the oral arguments for that one, but Steve, you also wrote a Roundup for that case back when it was argued in April. What were the issues that stood out to you?

WEST: Well, a couple of rulings out of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have made it almost impossible for western cities to do anything about homeless encampments. Those bring more crime and disease and safety issues for those who live in the cities. Grants Pass, Oregon has a population of around 38,000 and officials there tried to deal with this homeless population of around 600 people. They camp out in public parks, on sidewalks and under bridges.

REICHARD: Alright, so who sued who, and on what grounds?

WEST: Well, two people, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, who are homeless, sued represented by an advocacy group out of Georgetown School of Law. Their grounds was that the public camping restrictions violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

REICHARD: What did the circuit court rule on all that?

WEST: The circuit court agreed and ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment to penalize someone for sleeping outside when there was no available bed in the shelter, meaning the number of homeless people exceeds the number of available beds, but it depends upon how you count the number of beds. Beds in a religious shelter weren't included in the account because the court deemed it a violation of the First Amendment to condition shelter for a homeless person on attending a worship service or other faith-based requirements. But the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 majority, overruled the Ninth Circuit. The majority found that rules to restrict camping and sleeping in public areas are neither punishment nor cruel or unusual. They said this was not what the drafters of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they included the Eighth Amendment.

REICHARD: I read the opinion as well. It pointed out that it’s a stretch to call cruel limited fines and a maximum of 30 days in jail after multiple warnings. Cruel is usually defined as imposing terror, pain, or disgrace. Nor are fines and jail time unusual. Those are the usual mode of punishment for criminal offenses. I wonder, Steve, did any of the justices pick up on the exclusion of religious shelters from the count of available beds?

WEST: Yes, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and he pointed to the 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 a homeless person declined to go there, but he doesn't answer the question of why a practical solution is ignored, as it's not really before the court.

REICHARD: Ok, that’s it for opinion analysis. We made it through!

I will say this was an exciting term to watch, particularly with how the court dismantled Chevron deference…putting federal agencies on notice that they can’t fill in the blanks where Congress is unclear. Are there rulings you were disappointed to see?

WEST: Well, I was a bit underwhelmed this term in terms of the liberties perspective. I was not encouraged by the fact that the court failed to deal with a couple of the social media cases that were before it in terms of regulation of social media, or the Biden administration's attempts to to encourage or even coerce social media to take down certain posts. But I think you nailed it with Chevron. That might be the most far reaching ruling of the term, with the longest lasting effect. I think alarmist cries that it will hamstring the government are an overreaction, but there's no doubt it will give agencies and presidents pause in issuing regulations. Just one example I'm watching is the Biden administration's attempt to rewrite Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education. They want to make it encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. I just don't think that'll fly under this new rule.

REICHARD: I agree. Well, wrapping up here, the Supreme Court will be taking up some big issues next term. What cases will you be watching?

WEST: Well, two cases are on my radar. One is the court's review of Tennessee and Kentucky laws that protect minors from harmful treatments and surgeries to attempt to change their gender. Another is its review of a Texas law that requires porn sites to verify the user's age and attempt to keep porn away from kids.

REICHARD: That's been a long windup for those two issues. Well, Steve West is a legal reporter for WORLD, and editor of the liberties newsletter. Steve, thanks so much for your time and Happy Independence Day.

WEST: Yes, let's be thankful for the blessings of liberty. Happy Independence Day, Mary!

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.