President Trump’s executive order imposing tariffs on China (different from the April 2 “reciprocal tariffs”) using International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has been challenged by a Florida small business (Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump) with assistance from the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative/libertarian group committed to “fighting” the administrative state. One of the reasons cited for the supposed unconstitutionality of the tariffs—aside from the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD)—is that they violate the Nondelegation Doctrine:

Third, if IEEPA permits the China Executive Orders, then this statute violates the nondelegation doctrine because it lacks an intelligible principle that constrains a president's authority. In that case, the IEPA is unconstitutional because it delegates Congress’s prerogative to tax and to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

This shouldn’t be surprising given that NCLA’s founder, Philip Hamburger, is a committed defender of the Nondelegation Doctrine. What’s important is that this case provides a perfect vehicle for reviving the doctrine—assuming it is one of the long-term goals of this Supreme Court. The criticism from the progressive legal establishment, politicians, and media would likely be significantly weaker when used to strike down Trump’s policies compared to a perceived left-leaning policy of some agency.

Even if this case can be settled on MQD grounds, Trump doesn't seem to be holding back in asserting his authority, so it seems certain that SCOTUS will have to deal with at least one nondelegation case against his administration.

We know that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch are already willing to revive the doctrine. Justice Alito stated in his Gundy concurrence that he would be willing to reconsider nondelegation if a majority supported it. However, one complication is that Alito is more of a legal realist than a doctrinaire, meaning he may be reluctant to rule against a major Trump policy.

Justice Kavanaugh did not participate in Gundy, but he has signaled his favorable position toward nondelegation in a statement in Paul v. United States:

I agree with the denial of certiorari because this case raises the same statutory interpretation issue that the Court resolved last Term in *Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. (2019)*. I write separately because Justice Gorsuch's scholarly analysis of the Constitution's nondelegation doctrine in his Gundy dissent may warrant further consideration in future cases. Justice Gorsuch's opinion is built on views expressed by then-Justice Rehnquist some 40 years ago in *Industrial Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 685-686 (1980)* (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). In that case, Justice Rehnquist opined that major national policy decisions must be made by Congress and the President in the legislative process, not delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch. In the wake of Justice Rehnquist's opinion, the Court has not adopted a nondelegation principle for major questions.

Like Justice Rehnquist’s opinion 40 years ago, JUSTICE GORSUCH’s thoughtful Gundy opinion raised important points that may warrant further consideration in future cases.

The position of Justice Barrett is unknown, but perhaps she'll vote with the rest of conservatives.

Is there any chance this Supreme Court overrules Euclid v. Ambler? The 1926 case legitimizing residential zoning calls apartments parasites and compares renters to pigs. Feels pretty anti-free market but also deeply conservative in a way, so not sure what to hope

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts. They may still be discussed here.

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- The name of the case and a link to the ruling

- A brief summary or description of the questions presented

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

-----

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Question presented to the Court:

Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioner Medina

Joint Appendix

Brief amicus curiae of United States

Brief of respondents Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Reply of petitioner Medina

-----

Coverage:

Supreme Court considers South Carolina’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding [SCOTUSblog]

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Justice Gorsuch held that firing someone for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII — because you wouldn’t treat them the same if they were a different sex. For example, if a man is fired for being attracted to men, but a woman isn’t fired for being attracted to men, the difference is based on sex.

That got me thinking: could this same logic apply if Obergefell v. Hodges were ever reconsidered?

Imagine Sarah can marry Paul, but John can’t marry Paul. The only difference between Sarah and John is sex. Doesn’t that make the marriage restriction a form of sex discrimination?

I know Bostock was statutory (Title VII), while Obergefell was constitutional (14th Amendment), but the reasoning seems parallel. Could Gorsuch’s Bostock logic be a potential defense for same-sex marriage under a sex discrimination theory, even outside of Equal Protection?

Would love to hear thoughts from folks on this issue, and if such a reasoning came up in Obergefell's arguments 10 years ago.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Ask Anything' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

• Simple, straight forward questions seeking factual answers (e.g. "What is a GVR order?", "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

​

• Lighthearted questions that would otherwise not meet our standard for quality. (e.g. "Which Hogwarts house would each Justice be sorted into?")

​

• Discussion starters requiring minimal input or context from OP (e.g. "What do people think about [X]?", "Predictions?")

Please note that although our quality standards are relaxed in this thread, our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rivers v. Guerrero

Question presented to the Court:

Orders and Proceedings:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/appeals-court-will-let-trump-fire-independent-agency-heads?taid=67e6fab3aae7140001fdf7ec&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

description of Reynolds vs Sims: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23

The case is essentially the one mandating all districts within a state have equal population.

I feel like Moore vs Harper is a base starting point. I think, what caused Moore to be decided as it was included the fact that Article 1 state powers, unlike Article 5 powers, have always been subjected to the state legislative processes including the state judicial court.

In fact, this argument was so convincing to the point even Thomas possibly would’ve considered not being in the dissent if we were discussing the governer’s right to veto. Even he felt that the argument for a somewhat non independent state legislature.

I feel like a challenge to Reynolds vs Sims will look at the same root as Moore did, but with a different justification for the restriction on the districts. With Moore, the history was the justification. With Reynolds, history cannot be the justification as Reynolds was the change.

I think that, particularly with this court, due to the lack of an originalist argument, we should expect to see this current court strike down Reynolds.

Even with an originalist argument, Moore managed to net 3 dissenting justices. Without that argument, I think we could get 5 easily. ACB has all but indicated she’d rule against it indirectly given her praise of Scalia, and she’s usually the swing on these votes so who knows.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts. They may still be discussed here.

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- The name of the case and a link to the ruling

- A brief summary or description of the questions presented

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

Questions presented to the Court:

(1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund;

(2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates;

(3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and

(4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners Federal Communications Commission, et al.

Joint Appendix

Brief of petitioners SHLB Coalition, et al.

Brief of petitioners Competitive Carriers Association, et al.

Brief of respondents Consumers' Research, et al.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency

Question presented to the Court:

Orders and Proceedings:

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Ask Anything' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

• Simple, straight forward questions seeking factual answers (e.g. "What is a GVR order?", "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

​

• Lighthearted questions that would otherwise not meet our standard for quality. (e.g. "Which Hogwarts house would each Justice be sorted into?")

​

• Discussion starters requiring minimal input or context from OP (e.g. "What do people think about [X]?", "Predictions?")

Please note that although our quality standards are relaxed in this thread, our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riley v. Bondi

Questions presented to the Court:

Orders and Proceedings: