What is this case about?

Three current and former employees at a grocery distributor filed a complaint claiming their employer withheld overtime pay, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The company argued that these employees were “outside salesmen,” meaning they shouldn’t be entitled to overtime pay. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found the company liable for the overtime pay.

The company, however, disagrees with the court’s decision to use a stricter “clear and convincing evidence” standard to prove the employees were outside salesmen. The company asked for the case to be elevated to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Fourth Circuit’s “unreasoned and inconsistent” decision to apply the higher standard of proof should be overturned.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: The company E.M.D. Sales and Elda M. Devarie.

• Amici: The Washington Legal Foundation, New England Legal Foundation, Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Chamber of Commerce, NFIB SBLC, National Retail Federation, Restaurant Law Center, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, International Foodservice Distributors Association. The Department of Justice has also filed a brief in this matter in support of Petitioners.

Respondents: Employees Faustino Sanchez Carrera, Magdaleno Gervacio, and Jesus David Muro

• Amici: TBD

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

A decision in this case could affect access to overtime pay for some workers across the nation—a key target of Project 2025. A decision for Petitioners would mean that employers would still have to prove that “outside salesmen” not eligible for overtime were, in fact, not employees. However, it would not be as difficult for employers to make this proof as if the court ruled for the employee-respondent in this case.

What is this case about?

This is about the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a case about a retired firefighter in Florida who developed Parkinson’s disease. The firefighter retired shortly after her diagnosis and was later informed that she would only receive health insurance up to 24 months after her retirement rather than until she was 65, as a former city policy guaranteed. 

The city only cut off the benefits for the disabled firefighter, retaining the full benefits for non-disabled (or what the policy referred to as “normal”) retirees. The firefighter sued, saying that revoking the health insurance plan violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that the ADA does not protect any former employees from discrimination in how an employer provides post-employment benefits, meaning that as soon as an employee clocks out on their last day, their employer can legally slash their benefits based on their disability.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: Karyn D. Stanley

• Amici: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, International Association of Fire Fighters, Disability Rights Legal Center, Main Street Alliance, The Georgia Advocacy Office, AARP, AARP Foundation, Constitutional Accountability Center. The United States filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Stanley in the Eleventh Circuit.

Respondents: City of Sanford, Florida

• Amici: TBD

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

This case could threaten to allow blatant discrimination against people with disabilities. In addition, a bad ruling would harm small businesses by driving valuable disabled employees out of the workforce, harming employers’ bargaining power if employees know they can’t count on their post-employment benefits, and creating a competitive disadvantage for employers who want to do right by their former employees and invest in their post-employment benefits.

Who is Democracy Forward representing? Main Street Alliance a coalition that represents a national network of approximately 30,000 small businesses across the United States.

Important deadline: 

Amicus briefs in support of petitioners: September 23, 2024

Amicus briefs in support of the respondents: November 4, 2024

What is this case about?

This case is about whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which bans medical treatments meant to help minors transition to a gender that is different from their biological sex, is unconstitutional by violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

In 2023, Tennessee enacted a law barring gender-affirming care (including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries) for transgender patients under 18, with limited exceptions.  The law also allows people to sue healthcare providers who violate these rules, with potential consequences, including losing their medical licenses.

Along with their parents and a doctor who treats transgender patients, two 16-year-olds and a 13-year-old filed a lawsuit against Tennessee officials in federal court, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the ban on puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-transition surgeries.  

The Biden administration joined the case, arguing that the ban violates the right to equal protection, as it is an issue of public importance.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: United States (intervenor-appellee in the Sixth Circuit)

• Amici: Foreign Non-Profit Organizations Advocating for the Rights of Transgender People, Legal Scholars, American Academy of Pediatrics, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Williams Institute Scholars, California, Equality Florida, Dr. Erica E. Anderson, PhD, Constitutional Accountability Center, American Historical Association, Trevor Project, The American Psychological Association, TransParant and Minority Veterans of America, The Kentucky Plaintiffs, Families with Transgender Children, Expert Researchers and Physicians, Clinical Practice Guideline Experts, Professors of Law, Medicine, and Public Health, Yale Philosophers, GRACE, American Bar Association, Genders, and Sexualities Alliance Network, interACT Advocates for Intersex Youth, Family Law, and Constitutional Law Scholars, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Experts on Gender Affirming Care, 17 healthcare providers, Elliot Page, and 56 other transgender adults.

Respondents: Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and other Tennessee officials

• Amici: Alabama filed an amicus brief defending the ban at the cert petition stage. Professor James F. Blumstein, State Legislators, American Family Association Inc., and AFA Action Inc., Governor Gianforte, North Carolina Values Institute, Partners for Ethical Care, Kevin and Charmagne Cox, Joy Flores, Andrew Snow, Martha S., Kristine W., Bri Miller, Liz and Chris Doe, Yaacov Sheinfeld and Helen S., Citizens for Self-Governance, the state of Missouri, Women’s Declaration International USA, The Florida House of Representatives, Alliance Defending Freedom, Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Concerned Women for America, Defense of Freedom Institute, Ethics and Public Policy Center, American Principles Project, Association of Mature American Citizens, Independent Women’s Law Center, Family Research Council, First Liberty Institute, The American College of Pediatricians, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American Association of Christian Counselors, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical & Dental Association, Larger Detransitioners Community including public officials, health care providers and researchers, Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, Christopher Green, Abigail Martinez,  Manhattan Institute, Wisconsin Family Institute, Advancing American Freedom, Independent Council on Women’s Sports, Frontline Policy Council, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, America’s Frontline Doctors, Kentucky, International Non-Profit Organizations Advocating for Families Impacted by Gender Dysphoria, Do No Harm, Governor Henry Dargan McMaster, Max Lazzara, Our Duty-USA, Liberty Counsel, a coalition of fifty-six physicians, Texas, the Governor of Texas, Professor Kurt T. Lash, Alliance Defending Freedom, The Family Action Council of Tennessee, and America’s Future submitted amicus briefs supporting the respondent’s arguments.

There was significant amicus involvement at the Sixth Circuit level, including civil-rights groups, medical associations, transgender adults, international trans-rights organizations, family/constitutional law scholars, biomedical ethics/public health scholars, and local governments on the side of plaintiffs and groups, including ADF, AFL, Jonathan Mitchell, and the Family Research Council on the right.

Various organizations and individuals, including transgender adults and civil rights groups, filed supporting briefs, while Attorneys General in Alabama and other conservative groups support Tennessee. The case involves significant participation from medical associations, civil rights organizations, and scholars on both sides.

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

A bad ruling in this case could allow states to discriminate against transgender people by banning medical procedures based on unrelated personal beliefs, and, additionally, it threatens health care providers for treating their patients.

Important deadline: 

Oral arguments: December 4, 2024

What is this case about?

In 2023, Texas passed House Bill 1181, which requires that websites with one-third or more of the content being “harmful to minors” verify the age of all users. 

The law defines “harmful to minors” as sexual content that an average person would find obscene when considering its impact on minors. It also mandates that these websites prominently display government-written warnings about the harms of pornography, including claims that it can be addictive, damage brain development, and weaken brain function.

According to the ACLU, the age verification rule restricts adult access by forcing them to identify themselves, removing their anonymity. It may also prevent people without government ID or those misidentified by the system from accessing certain websites.

Plaintiffs, including the Free Speech Coalition and adult content creators, filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary block of the law. They argued that the age-verification rule violates the First Amendment by placing too much burden on users and that forcing websites to display health warnings is a form of compelled speech.

The district court granted the request to stop the law’s enforcement, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed on the age-verification portion.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: Free Speech Coalition, several adult media companies, and one adult performer.

• Amici: American Booksellers for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Freedom to Read Foundation, International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, Prof. Zachary Cantanzaro, First Amendment Scholars, National Coalition Against Censorship, CATO Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Institute for Justice, International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Atsign Inc., The Center for Democracy and Technology.

Respondents: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

• Amici: TBD

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

Allowing far-right extremists to restrict free speech (which is also a feature of Project 2025) sets a very dangerous precedent, and a bad decision in this case, could open the floodgates for more restrictions on the freedoms of Americans, overturning decades of protection for free speech rights.

Important deadline: 

Amicus briefs in support of petitioners: September 23, 2024

Amicus briefs in support of the respondents: November 22, 2024

What is this case about?

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. 

To market new tobacco products, manufacturers must submit a Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) and demonstrate that their product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” This includes showing that the product is more likely to help current tobacco users quit than to attract new users, particularly young people.

Triton Distribution applied to market their flavored e-cigarette products (like “Mother’s Milk and Cookies” and “Strawberry Astronaut”), but the FDA denied their application because the company failed to provide sufficient scientific evidence showing that the products would not attract youth more than help existing smokers quit. The FDA based its decision in part on concerns that flavored e-cigarettes are particularly appealing to minors, contributing to youth tobacco use and addiction.

However, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set aside the FDA’s denial of the company’s application.

Learn more.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• Amici: The state of Massachusetts and other nineteen states, Sixteen Members of Congress, Public Health, Medical, and Community Groups.

Respondents: Wages and White Lion Investments DBA Triton Distribution et al.

• Amici: Vaping Industry Stakeholders

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

A bad ruling in this case could limit the FDA’s ability to protect people and might have even further devastating consequences if precedent is established that stops federal agencies from fulfilling their mandate to protect our health and safety.

Who is Democracy Forward representing?

Sixteen Members of Congress: Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., Sen. Jeffrey A. Merkley, Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Jack Reed, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Edward J. Markey, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, Rep. Kim Schrier, M.D., Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Rep. Barbara Lee.

Important deadline: 

Oral arguments: December 2, 2024

What is this case about?

This case concerns whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a government agency to consider environmental impacts that go beyond the immediate effects of its actions to limit damage from pollution, even if the agency doesn’t have control over those broader impacts.

The case challenges the environmental review of a proposed rail line in Utah. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) approved the construction of the rail line, which would mostly be used to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin. 

A Colorado county and several environmental organizations challenged both the authorization and the environmental analyses by both the STB and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and an appeals court found that the environmental analysis justifying the rail line should have considered the impacts of facilitating more oil development on the environment and revoked the construction approvals. 

The rail company is asking the Supreme Court to review the case.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and Uinta Basin Railway

• Amici: Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, American Petroleum Institute, Center for American Liberty, NextDecade LNG, American Forest Resource Council, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (WY), et al., the state of Utah, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Center for Environmental Accountability, American Exploration & Mining Association, Law Professors, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the state of Louisiana, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Energy Transfer LP, NACCO Natural Resources Corporation, Anschutz Exploration Corporation, American Association of American Railroads.

Respondents: Eagle County Colorado, Center for Biological Diversity, Living Rivers, Sierra Club, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Wildearth Guardians, United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service represented by the Department of Justice.

• Amici: TBD

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

The National Environmental Policy Act was passed to ensure projects and developments do not cause such severe damage to our environment that it could threaten the health and safety of people and our planet. Environmental advocates, as well as the Biden Administration, are concerned that a bad ruling in this case would allow corporations to avoid responsibility for the far-reaching harms a project like an oil train track will cause.

Important deadline: 

Amicus briefs in support of petitioners: September 4, 2024

Amicus briefs in support of the respondents: October 25, 2024

Oral arguments: December 10, 2024

What is this case about?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) made a rule to regulate “ghost guns,” which are guns without serial numbers that people can easily build from parts, often sold as kits. The District Court stopped this rule from being enforced, and the Fifth Circuit Court agreed. However, the Supreme Court stepped in and allowed the rule to be enforced temporarily in August 2023.

Later, the Fifth Circuit Court again ruled in favor of blocking the rule, so the Biden administration is now asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The administration argues that under the Fifth Circuit’s decision, people could easily buy kits online and build functional guns in minutes without needing a background check, serial number, or any records.

Who is on each side?

Petitioners: United States

• Amici: A group of states, institutions, and organizations including those concerned about gun violence, including the Constitutional Accountability Center, Queens County District Attorney’s Office, parents of children shot and killed with a ghost gun in 2019, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Association, American Medical Association, and other major medical associations, Professors and Scholars of Linguistics and Law, DC and 23 states and the Northern Mariana Islands, 20 Major Cities, 9 Counties, 6 Prosecutors, Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, Gun Owners for Safety, Gun Violence Prevention Groups, Global Action on Gun Violence, District Attorney for New York County and City of New York.

Respondents: VanDerStok, Andren, Tactical Machining, Firearms Policy Coalition, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Defense Distributed, Polymer80, Second Amendment Foundation.

• Amici: A group of special interests predominantly opposing gun safety measures, including National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Western States Sheriffs’ Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Ltd., International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, National Association of Chiefs of Police, former Acting Chief of ATF Firearms Technology Branch Rich Vasquez and Center for Human Liberty, National Association for Gun Rights and National Foundation for Gun Rights, California Gun Rights Foundation, The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and Palmetto State Armory, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., Foundation for Moral Law, National Rifle Association of America, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, West Virginia, Montana and 25 other states.

What could the outcome mean for everyday people?

If the court rules that gun parts kits and incomplete frames are not considered firearms, it would make it easier for people to purchase and assemble guns without background checks, serial numbers, or government oversight. This could lead to an increase in “ghost guns.” 

Law enforcement agencies might find it more difficult to track and regulate these untraceable guns, making it harder to reduce gun trafficking. Ghost guns are often favored by people who want to avoid legal restrictions, such as individuals prohibited from owning firearms.

Important deadline: 

Arguments: October 8, 2024