Anticipating Justice: The US Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions and public mobilization

20 June 2024

The United States is bracing for a contentious 2024 election cycle. As experts warn of possible political violence, ACLED has relaunched the US Crisis Monitor to track what happens.

June marks not only the beginning of the summer season but also the end of the current Supreme Court term. Over the past eight months, the nine justices have heard over 60 cases and made decisions on nearly half of them. While the court will continue to release decisions over the coming weeks, several cases may spark demonstrations. The court is expected to release decisions connected to gun rights, abortion access, and former President Donald Trump’s claim to immunity — issues that have recently garnered a lot of attention from activists and continue to drive mobilization in the United States.

Gun rights

While the court has already decided on one gun rights case this term, deciding to strike down a ban on bump stocks,¹ there is still one more gun rights-related case left to be decided. On 7 November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for United States v. Rahimi, which could have pivotal implications for who can own firearms. At the center of the case is Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who claims his constitutional rights were infringed after the state revoked his handgun license and barred him from having firearms in his possession after a protective order was filed against him for domestic violence in 2020.² Rahimi was then indicted for violating the federal law that prohibited him from owning guns after police found firearms in his home. Rahimi had pleaded guilty to the charges and was initially sentenced to six years in prison. However, after the court’s decision in the 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that even individuals under protective orders were still covered by the Second Amendment and thus allowed to possess firearms.³

The New York State Bar Association has claimed that the Bruen decision would result in significant changes to gun regulations across the country, particularly in states such as New York with more stringent gun control.⁴ New York was one of seven states that were considered “may issue” states prior to the Supreme Court decision — meaning that citizens could be denied a carrying permit unless they showed a “special need” or “proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of the home.⁵ The high court’s 6-3 decision overturned the long-standing New York law and subsequently led to a flurry of challenges to gun laws across the country.⁶ The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that restrictions placed on the Second Amendment could be upheld only if there was a history of such regulation. He found no historical basis for New York’s law.⁷ The Bruen decision opened the door for lower courts to reexamine, and often invalidate, previous convictions and regulations on firearms.

The 5th Circuit’s decision in the Rahimi case ultimately struck down federal laws that prohibit gun possession for those under a restraining order for domestic violence.⁸ Opponents of the 5th Circuit’s decision have expressed concern that removing such regulations could allow for a spike in violence. The Battered Women’s Justice Project argues that regulations such as background checks and red-flag laws have prevented, since they were introduced in 1998, over 77,000 gun purchases by individuals with domestic violence restraining orders.⁹ The presence of a firearm is reported to increase the rate of homicide by more than six times in domestic violence cases.¹⁰

Beyond the implications for domestic violence, a victory for Rahimi could open the door for future challenges to firearm regulation. Less restrictions on gun ownership could also increase the likelihood that citizens bring arms to demonstrations. ACLED analysis has found that even a single armed individual present increases the likelihood of a demonstration turning violent or destructive.

Gun access has long been a contributing driver of mobilization across the political spectrum. However, while firearm regulations are a partisan issue, there are stark divides even within the political parties: Non-gun owners are more likely to favor restrictions on gun access compared with gun owners, regardless of party affiliation.¹¹ Over the past few years, pro- and anti-gun activists have held demonstrations in the wake of mass shootings, most notably those that targeted schools in Uvalde, Texas, and Nashville (see graph below).

Abortion access

The Supreme Court is also poised to make landmark decisions on two key abortion access cases heard this term. The court recently dismissed Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, ruling that the plaintiff group lacked legal standing. This ruling means mifepristone, a drug prescribed in two doses and used in over 60% of abortions in the United States,¹² will still be available. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine was the first abortion-related decision since 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Although mifepristone will remain accessible, many legal scholars have argued that the court left the door open for future cases to threaten access to abortion.¹³

Another case before the high court, Idaho v. United States, could limit hospitals’ ability to provide abortion care during emergencies. This case originated in August 2022 with Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibited nearly all abortions in the state. The Biden administration argued that the law conflicts with the federal mandate, the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).¹⁴ EMTALA ensures that people have access to emergency medical services, such as stabilizing care, regardless of their ability to pay. The justices will now need to decide if the Idaho law violates EMTALA although the federal act does not specifically mention abortion.

The decision in the Idaho v. United States case could also be consequential for abortion access across the country. While there has been less mobilization surrounding abortion access in recent months, pro-abortion rights demonstrators have been highly responsive to legal moves to restrict abortion access in recent years (see graph below). Earlier this year, anti-abortion activists held nationwide rallies during the annual March for Life in January, suggesting a likelihood of continued mobilization around abortion access on both sides of the issue, especially in several swing states like Arizona and Wisconsin.

Abortion is one of the most important issues for voters in the upcoming election, with polling suggesting that it is an especially high priority for younger voters and women.¹⁵ Of particular interest, a Wall Street Journal poll found that abortion was the No. 1 issue for suburban women in swing states, aligning with recent activity surrounding abortion-related protests in the swing states.¹⁶ The importance for voters, combined with the high stakes of both cases, suggests the potential for an increase in abortion-related protests after the court releases its decisions later this month. If the court’s ruling signals further restrictions to abortion access, there could be a spike in protests, as was seen after the 2022 decision overturning Roe.

Trump immunity case

While the other cases discussed here have been tied to the rights of everyday citizens, the last case of utmost importance in the upcoming election focuses on Trump’s claim to immunity for his actions in the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. This case has been billed as possibly one of the most consequential before the court this term, as the outcome will likely decide if proceedings in the case, brought by special counsel Jack Smith over Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, can proceed.¹⁷ If the case is allowed to move forward, Trump will face four felony charges for his alleged attempt to block President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. Before Trump’s claim to absolute immunity was heard in the Supreme Court, his lawyers argued before the DC Circuit, a federal appeals court, that presidents are immune from prosecution, even if they are accused of murder while in office.¹⁸

The case is also set against a backdrop of questions surrounding justices and their ability to remain impartial. Members of Congress have called for Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from the case over flags displayed at two of his properties.¹⁹ Neighbors reported that during the Capitol riot, an inverted American flag, which at that time was used as a symbol of pro-Trump/anti-Biden sentiment, was flying outside Alito’s Virginia home.²⁰ More recently, the ‘An Appeal to Heaven’ flag — linked to Christian Nationalism and the claim that the 2020 election was stolen — was seen flying outside Alito’s vacation home in New Jersey.²¹ Democrats in Congress have also called for Justice Thomas to recuse himself over his wife’s previous efforts to reverse Biden’s 2020 win and her attendance at the 6 January 2021 Trump rally.²² Both justices have refused to recuse themselves from the trial, causing some to question their ability to remain impartial.

These legal problems are not the only concerns for Trump, who was recently found guilty on all 34 felony counts in a hush money case in New York City.²³ After the verdict, Trump supporters took to pro-Trump websites and forums to call for protests and violence in response.²⁴ Their response is similar to what was seen after the 2020 election, although it was not reflected in any significant mobilization. Despite an increase in the number of pro-Trump/anti-Biden rallies since the summer of 2023, Trump’s legal cases have failed to mobilize demonstrations over the past year. The strongest response that summer came about in the wake of his indictment over the mishandling of legal documents in Mar-a-Lago in June 2023 (see graph below). After Trump’s latest conviction in New York City, around 10 rallies expressing support for the former president took place, two of which were reportedly convened by the Proud Boys.²⁵

Round Up

Trump convicted in hush money case

On 30 May 2024, a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 charges related to hush money payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels, who claimed the two had sex. This verdict marks the first time a US president has been convicted of a crime.²⁶ The former president disavowed the trial, which he lambasted as “rigged” and “disgraceful.”²⁷ Sentencing is currently scheduled for 11 July, though Trump is expected to appeal the verdict. He has also been indicted in three other pending felony cases, though the hush money trial may be the only one decided before the November 2024 election.

‘Discriminatory’ South Carolina congressional map upheld

On 23 May 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina could use a congressional map previously struck down by a federal appeals court, which found that a congressional district had been drawn to disadvantage Black voters.²⁸ In a 6-3 decision, the majority found that the lower court had “clearly erred,” stating that plaintiffs showed insufficient “direct evidence” of racial gerrymandering in the design of the state’s first district.²⁹ The upheld congressional map will be used in the November 2024 election.

Trump documents trial postponed

In May 2024, US Appeals Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely postponed Trump’s Florida trial over his handling of classified documents. Judge Cannon claimed she had canceled a prior May trial date in order to resolve pending motions before a jury could hear the case.³⁰ This decision indicates that Trump may not face trial in any of his three remaining cases before the 2024 election, though prosecutors have pushed for the classified documents case to be tried later this year.³¹

Arizona abortion ban overturned

On 2 May 2024, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed a repeal of her state’s highly restrictive abortion legislation, which dates back to the US Civil War. The legislation, which bans abortion from the moment of conception and carries a two- to five-year prison sentence for performing an abortion, was reinstated the month prior by the state’s Supreme Court. Legal disputes over the 1864 law began when Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed federal access to abortion, was overturned in 2022.³² Due to Arizona law, the repeal cannot go into effect until 90 days after the conclusion of a legislative session. Because Arizona does not have fixed legislative session dates, it is unclear when the law – which is set to become enforceable in the coming months – will be deactivated.³³ Abortion is expected to be a key issue on November’s ballot in Arizona, as the state is expected to hold a referendum on abortion access after rights groups gathered over half a million signatures for a constitutional amendment.³⁴

For more, see ACLED May Regional Overview for the US & Canada.

Visuals produced by Ciro Murillo.