Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(June 26–July 2, 2023), Part 1
July 3, 2023
The federal courts issue hundreds of decisions every week in cases involving diverse legal disputes. This
Sidebar series selects decisions from the past week that may be of particular interest to federal lawmakers,
focusing on orders and decisions of the Supreme Court and precedential decisions of the courts of appeals
for the thirteen federal circuits. Selected cases typically involve the interpretation or validity of federal
statutes and regulations, or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight
functions.
Some cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other CRS
general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may click here to subscribe to
the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming seminars by CRS
attorneys.
This week’s Congressional Court Watcher is divided into two parts because of the number of notable
decisions issued over the past week. This Legal Sidebar (Part 1) discusses Supreme Court activity from
June 26 through July 2, 2023. A forthcoming companion Legal Sidebar (Part 2) addresses decisions of the
U.S. courts of appeals from that period.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its final opinions of the October 2022 term:
• Civil Procedure: In a fractured opinion, the Court rejected a Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring an out-of-state corporation to
consent to personal jurisdiction in the state's courts to do business in the state. The
controlling opinion recognized the Court’s 1917 decision in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of
Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. as determinative, and the Court rejected
arguments that this decision had implicitly been overruled by later cases (Mallory v.
Norfolk Southern Railway Co.).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10995
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
• Civil Rights: In a unanimous decision, the Court clarified its test from Trans World
Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison for determining when an employer does not have to
accommodate an employee’s religious practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 because of the “undue hardship” it would cause. The Court held that Hardison,
which appeared to characterize an undue hardship as involving “more than de minimis”
costs, should not be read literally or in isolation. Instead, the Court interpreted Hardison
to direct a reviewing court to engage in a fact-specific inquiry, in which the employer
must show that the proposed accommodation imposes a substantial increased cost upon
the conduct of its business (Groff v. DeJoy).
• Education: A six-Justice majority struck down race-conscious admissions policies of the
University of North Carolina and Harvard College as violating the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Applying the strict scrutiny standard used to review race-based classifications under the
Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that the policies’ diversity-related goals lacked
sufficiently focused and measurable objectives to support the consideration of an
applicant’s race. While the Court’s decision upends prior rulings permitting the limited
use of race in higher education admissions, the Court stated colleges may consider an
applicant’s discussion of how race informed his or her life experiences, as might occur in
an application essay (Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of
Harvard College; Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina).
• Education: The Supreme Court issued rulings in related cases challenging the Biden
Administration’s student loan cancellation policy. In one case, the Court unanimously
held that the borrower plaintiffs—one ineligible for any student loan relief and one
eligible for only partial relief—failed to identify an injury fairly traceable to the policy
(Dep’t of Education v. Brown). In the other case, the Court held 6-3 that one of the state
plaintiffs, Missouri, had standing to challenge the policy because of its effects on a state
instrumentality that services federal student loans. Reaching the merits, the majority held
that the Secretary of Education’s power under the HEROES Act to “waive or modify”
statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to federal student financial assistance
programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act did not authorize the policy (Biden
v. Nebraska).
• Elections: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections
Clause does not generally deprive a state court of jurisdiction over whether a state
legislature, in exercising its authority to regulate federal elections, has comported with
the state constitution. The Court further held, however, that state courts cannot transgress
ordinary bounds of judicial review to arrogate to themselves power that the Election
Clause vests in the state legislature (Moore v. Harper).
• Intellectual Property: Resolving a circuit split, the Court held that two provisions of the
Lanham Act—15 U. S. C. § 1114(1)(a) and § 1125(a)(1)—that provide civil remedies for
U.S. trademark infringements extend only to claims where the infringing use in
commerce is domestic (Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc.).
• Speech: In a 7-2 judgment, the Court held that, to establish a statement as a “true
threat” unprotected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, the government must
show that the speaker has some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the
statement; it is not enough to show that an objectively reasonable person would regard
the statement as a threat of violence. The controlling opinion further decided that a mens
rea of recklessness is sufficient for true-threat prosecutions (Counterman v. Colorado).

---

Congressional Research Service
3
• Speech: The Court held in a 6-3 decision that Colorado would violate the Free Speech
Clause if it sought to compel a website designer to produce websites for same-sex
weddings against her religious convictions. The majority held that the First Amendment
prevented the state from applying a public accommodations law to force the designer to
“celebrate and promote” a marriage she did not agree with, regardless of whether the
designer offered her services commercially to the public (303 Creative v. Elenis).
The Court also agreed to review nine cases (two of which are consolidated) for the October 2023 Term:
• Civil Rights: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Eighth Circuit involving a police
officer who argues that her transfer to another department component was unlawful
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court
granted certiorari only to answer whether Title VII bars discrimination in transfer
decisions absent a separate court determination that the decision caused a significant
disadvantage (Muldrow v. St. Louis).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Court agreed to consider whether the Fifth
Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prevents retrial of a criminal defendant in an
unusual set of circumstances. Here, a jury acquitted the defendant on one charge and
convicted him of another arising from the same facts. The Georgia Supreme Court
characterized the verdicts as “repugnant” because of their irreconcilable nature and held
that the defendant could be retried on both counts (McElrath v. Georgia).
• Firearms: The Court granted certiorari in a case from the Fifth Circuit asking whether 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by someone subject to a
domestic violence restraining order, is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment
(United States v. Rahimi).
• Immigration: In consolidated cases from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, the Court agreed
to decide whether an alien placed in removal proceedings must receive a notice to appear
in a single document containing the time and place of the proceeding and, if the
document is not received, whether a removal order issued in absentia is subject to
rescission (Garland v. Singh; Campos-Chaves v. Garland).
• Immigration: The Court granted certiorari in a case from the Third Circuit in which it is
asked to consider the reviewability of immigration authorities’ determination that a set of
circumstances does not constitute “extreme and unusual hardship” potentially leading to
relief from removal. The Court is asked whether this determination is a mixed question of
law and fact or an unreviewable discretionary judgment under governing statute
(Wilkinson v. Garland).
• Securities: The Court agreed to review a Fifth Circuit decision holding unconstitutional
the use of in-house administrative law judges (ALJs) by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to adjudicate securities fraud cases. The Court is asked (1) whether
Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine in giving the SEC discretion to bring
enforcement actions either administratively or through a suit in an Article III court; (2) if
the SEC’s in-house adjudication of cases seeking civil penalties violates the Seventh
Amendment right to a jury trial; and (3) whether the statutory removal protections given
to SEC ALJs infringe on the President’s power to remove executive officers (SEC v.
Jarkesy).
• Tax: The Supreme Court agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to Internal Revenue
Code § 965’s “Mandatory Repatriation Tax” (MRT), created by P.L. 115-97, commonly
referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Where U.S. investors previously were not
generally obliged to pay taxes on unrealized foreign earnings, the MRT imposes a one-

---

Congressional Research Service
4
time tax on a U.S. shareholder’s pro rata share of the post-1986 untaxed and undistributed
foreign earnings of a specified foreign corporation. The Court is asked whether this tax
on unrealized foreign earnings is an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Sixteenth
Amendment’s Apportionment Clause, or instead a tax on income exempted from the
Amendment’s apportionment requirements (Moore v. United States).
• Veterans: The Court agreed to consider the interplay between the eligibility requirements
for education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the earlier Montgomery GI Bill for
veterans who served distinct periods of qualifying service. By statute, the total time for
receipt of educational assistance under each program is capped. The Court is asked
whether a veteran may switch to the more generous Post-9/11 GI Bill program before
exhausting their Montgomery GI Bill benefits (Rudisill v. McDonough).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

---

Congressional Research Service
5


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10995 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---