Supreme Court to Address Climate, Immigration, Gun Rights in New Term

Why it matters locally: Potential changes to the Chevron doctrine could impact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's ability to interpret and enforce environmental regulations. The Supreme Court's ruling on federal agency authority may alter how agencies like the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources operate and enforce state-specific environmental protections.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term Monday with a docket that includes cases focusing on climate change, gun rights, immigration, and religious liberty. The justices will consider five specific cases during this term. These cases include challenges to federal agency authority, interpretations of the Second Amendment, and government actions at the U.S. border. One case, *Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce*, questions the precedent set by *Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council*, a 1984 ruling that gives federal agencies discretion in interpreting ambiguous statutes. The court will examine a challenge brought by fishing companies against a federal requirement for them to pay for onboard observers. The fishing companies argue that this rule exceeds the agency's statutory authority. A companion case, *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, also addresses the *Chevron* doctrine, with fishing companies challenging similar observer fee requirements. Legal scholars and former federal officials have stated that overturning *Chevron* would significantly alter how federal regulations operate. Richard Frank, a professor of environmental practice at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, said such a decision would be a "game changer in many areas of environmental law." The court will also hear *United States v. Rahimi*, a case concerning the Second Amendment. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms violated the Second Amendment. The Biden administration appealed this decision, arguing that the law is a necessary measure to protect domestic violence victims. The Supreme Court's ruling could redefine the scope of gun ownership rights for individuals subject to restraining orders. In *City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson*, the justices will consider whether municipalities can prohibit homeless individuals from sleeping outdoors with blankets or in vehicles. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against the city's ordinances, stating that punishing people for sleeping outside when no shelter beds are available constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This case could establish a national standard for how cities address homelessness. The court will also address immigration in *Department of Homeland Security v. Texas*. This case involves a challenge to a Biden administration policy that prioritizes certain groups of migrants for deportation. Texas and Louisiana argue that the policy violates federal immigration law and requires the government to deport all undocumented immigrants. A federal appeals court previously sided with the states, halting the policy. The Supreme Court's decision will determine the executive branch's discretion in setting immigration enforcement priorities. Another case, *Lindke v. Freed*, examines the line between a public official's private and official social media use. The case stems from a dispute involving a city manager who blocked a constituent on Facebook after the constituent criticized his COVID-19 response. The constituent argued that the city manager, by blocking him, violated his First Amendment rights. The court will clarify when public officials' social media activities fall under their governmental duties.