The Court overruled Chevron deference, holding that courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

The Supreme Court granted applications to stay enforcement of EPA's "Good Neighbor Plan" rule against the applicants pending review in lower courts. The majority found the applicants were likely to succeed in arguing the rule was arbitrary and capricious because EPA failed to adequately explain why the rule could still be applied if fewer states were covered than originally planned.

The Supreme Court dismissed the writs of certiorari before judgment as improvidently granted and vacated the stays entered by the Court on January 5, 2024.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The Court held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision approving such releases in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan.

The Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial in federal court. The Court ruled that the SEC's practice of adjudicating such cases in-house before an administrative law judge violates the defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. §666 prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not criminalize gratuities (payments given after an official act without a prior agreement). The Court reversed the lower court's conviction of James Snyder under §666 for accepting a gratuity.

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court's preliminary injunction against government officials, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of future injury traceable to the government defendants that could be redressed by an injunction.

The Supreme Court denied a motion by Texas and New Mexico to enter a proposed consent decree that would have resolved their dispute over the Rio Grande Compact. The Court ruled that the consent decree could not be approved without the consent of the United States, which had intervened in the case, because it would dispose of the federal government's Compact claims without its agreement.

The Court held that a U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. The Court rejected the argument that denying a visa to a citizen's noncitizen spouse violates the citizen's constitutional right to marriage.

The Court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth. This implicates the Confrontation Clause if the statements are testimonial. The Court vacated and remanded the case for the lower court to determine if the statements at issue were testimonial.