Skip to content
Menu
menu

Photo by iStock

Legal Report: How the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Affect Security

Security Management’s Legal Report is a monthly column that highlights the instances where legal matters intersect with the security industry. Our team tracks court cases, new and developing legislation, and regulatory decisions or investigations that affect private organizations and security professionals worldwide.

In this special edition of Legal Report, we highlight the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions during the 2024 term that affect the security industry.

To share a tip or notify Security Management about emerging legal issues, email Associate Editor Sara Mosqueda at [email protected]

January 6 riots. The justices ruled in favor of a man seeking to overturn an obstruction charge for entering the U.S. Capitol building during the attack on 6 January 2021.

In a 6-3 vote, the Court decided that Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, did not violate a law against obstruction of an official proceeding. The decision, issued on 28 June, narrowed the scope of the law so that it solely applies to evidence tampering—if someone accused were to destroy documents or records during the proceeding.

The justices remanded the case back to a circuit court for further proceedings. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in a concurrent opinion that the charges against Fischer could still proceed within this narrowed lens.

“It might well be that Fischer’s conduct…involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding,” Jackson wrote. “If so, then Fischer’s prosecution…can, and should proceed.”

Fischer faces additional charges related to the 6 January attack on the U.S. Capitol, including civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers; and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.

The ruling could affect 300 other individuals’ cases related to the 6 January riot. (Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-5572, 2024)

Agency authority. Another 6-3 Court ruling overturned a 1984 decision that directed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when federal laws are ambiguous. The previous decision, which resulted in what is referred to as the Chevron doctrine, was the foundation that allowed various federal agencies to issue regulations based on their interpretation of laws passed by Congress.

The majority of the judges determined that the courts, not federal agencies, are meant to decide what a federal law and its possible ambiguities may mean. The decision is expected kick off a slew of litigation filed by private organizations against regulatory agencies.

The 28 June ruling was issued in response to suits filed by two commercial fishing companies that challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation. (Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Department of Commerce, et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-451, 2024)

Opioids. The Court ruled that a proposed multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Oxycontin manufacturer Purdue Pharma cannot move forward. The Court determined that the Bankruptcy Code, which supported the proposed plan, does not have the necessary power to block future lawsuits against those who have not filed for bankruptcy.

In a 5-4 vote, the majority sided with the federal government’s desire to block the bankruptcy plan. The plan would have attempted to shield the principal owners of the company, the Sackler family, from liability for claims related to opioids.

The Court agreed with a lower court’s decision and noted that “nothing in the law authorizes bankruptcy courts to extinguish claims against third parties like the Sacklers, without the claimants’ consent,” according to the opinion. The claimants in this case refer to opioid victims or their family members who have filed a suit against the company or a Sackler family member.

“That injunction would not just prevent suits against the company’s officers and directors but would run in favor of hundreds, if not thousands, of Sackler family members and entities under their control,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion. “…Thousands of opioid victims voted against the plan, too, and many pleaded with the bankruptcy court not to wipe out their claims against the Sacklers without their consent.”

As a result of the decision, opioid victims will continue to wait for any financial support for recovery efforts. (Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-124, 2024)

Domestic violence. In an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld a federal law that bans anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm.

In 2020, Zackey Rahimi was subject to a restraining order that barred him from possessing a firearm. The order was placed after Rahimi forced a woman—who was his girlfriend at the time—into his car when she attempted to end the relationship. During the altercation, the woman’s head hit the dashboard of the vehicle and Rahimi fired a gun at a bystander.

Authorities later named Rahimi as a suspect in a series of shootings in Texas. As part of the investigation, they searched his home and recovered a rifle, a pistol, and ammunition—alleged violations of the civil protective order. Rahimi was charged with one count of possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

After Rahimi was charged, he disputed that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with Rahimi, and prosecutors appealed the ruling, which ultimately went before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said when a “restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”

Although the ruling is a victory for victims of domestic violence and their advocates, “the Court’s continued reliance on a murky, history-focused test leaves the door open for future challenges to firearm safety policies,” according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. (United States v. Rahimi, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-915, 2024)

Regulatory fines. The Court reeled in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) powers, along with that of other administrative agencies in a 27 June decision.

Six of the justices determined that the SEC’s policy of using in-house proceedings for securities fraud penalties violates Seventh Amendment rights to a trial by jury.

The case could be a bellwether for other regulatory agencies that pursue civil penalties through internal proceedings instead of federal courts. (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-859, 2024)

Firearms. The Court struck down a federal rule that reclassified a gun with a bump stock as a machine gun. In a 6-3 decision, the Court legalized the purchase and possession of bump stocks in U.S. states that do not explicitly ban bump stocks.

Bump stocks can be added to semi-automatic rifles to allow the shooter to continuously fire the gun using a single hold on the trigger.

Michael Cargill legally bought two bump stocks in April 2018. When the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) rule banning bump stocks went into effect, Cargill surrendered the items to the ATF. He also challenged the ATF’s rule in a lawsuit, which eventually made its way to the Court.

Ultimately, the Court determined that the ATF exceeded its authority and struck down the rule. The Court found that, from a technical standing, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not qualify as a machine gun.

While the ATF’s rule may have been thrown out by the Court, federal and state legislation can still be drafted and enacted to ban bump stocks. (Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Cargill, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-976, 2024)

Intellectual property. In another 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that copyright owners can recover infringement damages after three years—expanding the amount of damages defendants may be responsible for.

The decision was issued in response to a suit filed by Sherman Nealy against music publishing company Warner Chappell. Nealy claimed that the company’s licensing activities from 10 years prior and beyond the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations infringed upon his rights as a copyright holder.

But the Court agreed with Nealy that the suit was still timely since he filed his suit within three years of discovering that the infringement had occurred. (Warner Chappell Music, Inc., v. Nealy, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-1078, 2024)

Whistleblowers. In a unanimous decision, the justices reinstated a $900,000 award to a whistleblower plaintiff.

Trevor Murray was employed at investment bank and financial services company UBS. He worked as a research strategist, which under SEC regulations required him to certify that his reports to customers were independently produced and reflected his own views.

Murray informed his supervisor that two leaders on the UBS trading desk had engaged in what he perceived to be “unethical and illegal efforts to skew his independent reporting,” according to the opinion.

UBS fired Murray shortly afterwards and he subsequently sued the firm, claiming he was a protected whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A jury ruled in Murray’s favor and awarded him $900,000.

An appellate court overturned the original verdict, but the Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s decision. The Court ruled that whistleblowers under Sarbanes-Oxley such as Murray need to prove protected activity was a “contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action but need not prove that his employer acted with ‘retaliatory intent,’” the opinion explained.

The decision means that in the future, employers will have to prove that any decisions made that affect a whistleblower would be taken even in the absence of a report from a whistleblower. (Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-660, 2024)

 

arrow_upward