Case Notes

Home > Case Notes

Posted 17 Apr 2024 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a 6-3 opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court created a new standard under Title VII for employee transfers, rejecting any heightened harm requirement – such as materiality or significant disadvantage - that lower courts have applied.  However, the Court did not go so far as to adopt the Petitioner’s proposed rule in the case which would have found any transfer, regardless of harm would be actionable under Title VII if based on a...

Posted 12 Apr 2024 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court issued a narrow holding in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, a Takings case involving impact fees.  The Court held that legislatively enacted impact fees are not exempt from Nollan and Dolan but remanded to the lower court on all other arguments. This case involves the County of El Dorado’s traffic impact mitigation fee, which it adopted via General Plan, to require new development to help finance the construction of new roads and widen...

Posted 15 Mar 2024 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court set forth the test for when local government officials are considered “state actors” for the purposes of the First Amendment when they post on social media.  The case is a win for local governments as the test provided by the Supreme Court safeguards the free speech rights of elected officials while balancing the rights of their citizens.  More importantly, it is objective and focuses on authority as the test to determine if...

Posted 03 Jul 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

On June 30th, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in a significant decision that will impact antidiscrimination laws around the country, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s public accommodation law violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by compelling the speech of a business owner engaged in expressive activity.  This case was a fight between whether the creation and sale of a wedding website to the public is considered speech, which would be protected under the First Amendment, or commercial activity...

Posted 29 Jun 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in an important employment law case, a unanimous Supreme Court “clarified” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison’s “more than . . . de minimis” language, concluding that it does not suffice to establish an “undue hardship” under Title VII.  Instead, the Court held that to demonstrate an “undue hardship,” an employer must show “a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”  While the Court did not overrule Hardison, this clarification of its meaning will likely...

Posted 27 Jun 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Moore v. Harper, the long-anticipated case involving the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT) advanced by the North Carolina legislature.  The Court rejected the ISLT and held that the Federal Elections Clause “does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”  Though the foregoing statement sounds ordinary, the ramifications for local governments had the ISLT been adopted would have been anything but. Following the 2020 census the North Carolina...

Posted 26 Jun 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

On June 23rd, in United States v. Hansen, the Supreme Court interpreted the terms “encourages” and “induces” in 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) narrowly and upheld the statute’s constitutionality.  While the decision was technically a loss for the position advocated by IMLA, by narrowly interpreting the scope of the statute, many (though not all) of the concerns that local governments had regarding the case are likely mitigated. At issue in this case was an overbreadth challenge to 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which prohibits “encourage[ing]...

Posted 30 May 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Erich Eiselt

On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case again construing the meaning of “waters of the United States.” The decision in favor of the petitioners was unanimous, but the underlying analyses varied widely. The case arose when Michael and Chantell Sackett began backfilling a housing lot near Priest Lake, Idaho. According to the EPA, this violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging pollutants including gravel into “navigable waters,”...

Posted 25 May 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that Hennepin County violated the Takings Clause by keeping the surplus equity in a condominium that it sold after the homeowner failed to pay her property taxes (and failed to regain title to that property pursuant to state law).  The Taking occurred not with the sale of the property for failure to pay property taxes or when the County kept the tax debt (including interest and penalties), but rather, the County...

Posted 18 May 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Erich Eiselt

Do states have the authority to regulate how long trains can stop at grade crossings?  That, in essence, is the question being presented in a recent petition for Supreme Court certiorari by the State of Ohio in its action against railroad behemoth CSX. Filed in November 2022, the petition  arises after the Ohio Supreme Court, in a divided opinion in State of Ohio v. CSX Transportation, Inc., no. 2020-6038 (Ohio Aug. 17, 2022), held that federal law preempts such action...