美国联邦法院最新审判期值得关注的判决

1. Rucho v. Common Cause 。In a 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political gerrymandering claims were political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, writing that “there are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” In a joint dissent, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority’s refusal to remedy a constitutional violation which targeted “the most fundamental” right to participate equally in the political process.

2. Department of Commerce v. New York。The Supreme Court held 5–4 that the U.S. Department of Commerce’s explanation of its decision to add a citizenship question to the census was pretextual, and thus violated the requirement that agencies “disclose the basis” of their actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. On its finding, the Court affirmed the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York’s prior decision to remand the issue to the Department for further explanation. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in part, calling the decision “an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions.”

3. Kisor v. Wilkie。The Supreme Court declined by a 5–4 vote to overrule the longstanding doctrine of “Auerdeference,” which counsels courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan emphasized that the Court has “cabined Auer’s scope” and thus “maintained a strong judicial role in interpreting rules.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, argued in a concurring opinion that Auer deference should be abandoned because it creates “systematic judicial bias in favor of the federal government, the most powerful of parties, and against everyone else.”

4. Iancu v. Brunetti。In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on trademarking scandalous or immoral material was unconstitutional. Justice Kagan, author of the majority opinion, held that such a prohibition favored conventional ideas, specifically noting how “this facial viewpoint bias in the law results in viewpoint discriminatory application.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern about the consequences of the decision by creating a “rush to register.”

5. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas。The Supreme Court held 7–2 that a residency requirement to sell liquor in Tennessee unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state residents. Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that the 21st Amendment, which granted states the power to regulate alcohol, does not shield states from complying with the Commerce Clause. To hold otherwise, he stated, would mean that “a state law prohibiting the importation of alcohol for sale to persons of a particular race, religion, or sex would be immunized from challenge under the Equal Protection Clause.”