2023 SCOTUS Ruling Round-Up
Supreme Court cases can be confusing and multi-faceted, hard to understand even for people interested in the issues at play. The decisions handed down by our nation’s highest court ultimately have the potential for lasting consequences on our lives. Despite the complicated issues deliberated by the Court, the latest term, (2022–2023), mostly turned out as predicted, with a few notable exceptions.
Just in case you missed it — in this 24 hour news cycle that can sometimes be easy to do — we’ve put together a quick ruling round-up so you can stay in the know and ensure your campaign and your candidates are aware of how these consequential decisions will affect your race, and the future of our country.
We went over the potential impacts of the student loan cases earlier this year — who they would impact the most, and what we could do if things didn’t go our way.
Spoiler alert: they didn’t.
But we’ve also rounded up a few other noteworthy cases, and are happy to report that there were some surprising rulings we can’t say we’re mad about.
Arguably the biggest personal finance issue before the Court, which had millions of people on pins and needles, was whether or not the Biden Administration had the authority to forgive student debt for up to 45 million people who hold student loans in this country. In a 6–3 decision along partisan lines, the Court ruled the administration did not have the authority to wipe out debt under the HEROES Act, the national emergency-based rationale the Administration pursued. Potentially hopeful news for those with debt — the Biden Administration plans on pursuing other avenues, namely using the Higher Education Act. Though payments will restart in a few weeks, here’s hoping the administration’s second try is more successful than the first.
Putting money back into the hands of millions of Americans isn’t the only front we lost on — LGBTQ+ rights also took a hit, leaving the progress of the last decade on vulnerable legal ground. In the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis the Court had to answer whether a web designer in Colorado had a First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples despite a state law that prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples. Ruling again along partisan lines, the Court ruled 6–3 the First Amendment did protect the web designer from expressing any views she opposed, and maintained her ability to deny service to same-sex couples. This case pitted the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals against claims of religious freedom — we’ve been on this merry-go-round before — but it also limited discrimination laws from being enforced by the government more generally. Justice Clarance Thomas even suggested the court “revisit” precedent on contraception and same-sex marriage.
Affirmative action was also rolled back — in another 6–3 ruling the Court ruled that race-conscious admissions were unconstitutional. In the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the admissions programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points.” Another example of the hot button issues this court is happy to take on, and continue policy making from the bench.
In happier news, there were some wins for state legislatures and federal elections. In yet another 6–3 decision, the Court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory which had the potential to change how federal elections were conducted, and would have given the states unchecked power to set rules and draw congressional maps. The majority argued that adopting the theory would have acute consequences — erasing safeguards against gerrymandering and potentially limit the ability to challenge voting restrictions.
In a similar vein, the Court ruled that Alabama’s redistricting plan did violate the Voting Rights Act in 2021 by limiting the power of Black voters. This was considered a surprise ruling, with a 5–4 decision with Chief Justices Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh siding with the liberal bloc. The impact of this decision could be that other states in the South have to potentially redraw their own maps, signaling a win for voting rights across the country.
While this session delivered some devastating hits to progress along partisan lines as expected, the notable decisions on voting rights, state legislatures, and tribal rights were welcomed surprises. It’s hard not to look at these and see them as momentary shifts in the politicization of the Court, especially since the decisions this term have had big impacts on people’s lives. But as we mentioned earlier this year, there are avenues for local and state legislatures, along with Congress, to continue to push for progress and be catalysts for change. That’s where you come in — elections have consequences.
It is important for campaigns and political professionals to remember the longevity and impact of decisions made when in office. With an increasingly conservative and politically activist Supreme Court making sweeping changes to American public life, voters will be looking to candidates not just for representation and policy solutions, but for clear-eyed and far-sighted legal judgment. Republicans have long demanded clear legal guarantees from their representatives, pushed by massive national groups like the Federalist Society.
Democrats running for office need a plan for reversing the coordinated conservative influence on our legal system, because the hard truth, which Republicans clearly understand, is that if the court strikes down all left-leaning legislation then all our work to get your chosen candidate into office was wasted. Voters need to know not only that Democrats have good policy intentions, but a holistic legal strategy to defend it for generations to come. And that starts now, with you — and your campaign.
Running for office and need help developing your platform? We offer a free 15 minute consultation — Book a call now.
Written by Ashleigh Padilla Goins and Colin Scharff from the Evinco Strategies Policy Department.