Yahoo Finance The Supreme Court cases (other than Trump) that matter most to the business world in 2024
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it considers whether former President Donald Trump should be barred from holding future office. But the business world will be watching other high court cases just as closely.
A lot is at stake for a number of industries in 2024.
Supreme Court justices are expected to make rulings that could limit the reach of social media, the ability of federal agencies to crack down on companies, and the power of bankruptcy courts to shield powerful parties from liability.
Here is a closer look at those cases, all of which are expected to be adjudicated by the end of the Supreme Court's term this summer:
Social media
Should tech giants be allowed to decide what content and users are allowed on their social media platforms without government interference?
This is one of the core questions facing the Supreme Court in 2024.
It will consider two cases challenging laws in Florida and Texas that restricted major social media companies from removing the accounts of large publishers and political candidates and moderating user posts that expressed certain viewpoints, including political views.
An appellate court upheld the Florida law, and a separate appellate court blocked Texas's legislation.
NetChoice, a technology organization that advocates for Big Tech companies, including Yahoo Finance, opposed both laws and is now involved as a plaintiff in the Texas dispute and a defendant in the Florida matter.
It argues that social media companies are entitled to their own First Amendment right to block users and user content from their platforms.
Other states may be waiting to see how the high court rules before bringing more legal cases or proposing new laws challenging content moderation.
"The irony of both the Texas and Florida laws is that they invoke journalistic liberty to force social media platforms to host speech they don’t like," said Cliff Davidson, partner at Snell & Wilmer.
The laws, he said, could be difficult for social media companies to interpret and follow because they apply to "journalistic enterprises" based on the amount of content an enterprise creates or the number of its paid subscribers or users.
But "it’s unclear how a social media platform is supposed to determine what content these laws protect day-to-day" because the laws are silent on how those figures are determined, how long the minimums must be met, and whether the reported number of users must be verified.
Federal power
How much authority should the agencies of the US government have when interpreting their authority to regulate companies?
This is another core question the high court will consider in 2024. Its rulings could curb the power regulators have to intervene in industries ranging from finance and banking to fishing, autos, and pharmaceuticals.
On Jan. 17, the court is scheduled to hear two specific cases featuring battles between US fisheries regulators from the Commerce Department and fishing companies that argue the department went too far by requiring regulated companies to pay the salaries of the federal government's mandated on-board monitors.
The cases offer a high-profile test of a four-decade-old legal precedent known as Chevron deference.
This principle — first established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case that centered on the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of federal law — holds that judges should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation when that law is ambiguous, so long as the agency interpretation is reasonable.
Later Supreme Court rulings held that courts must also refrain from interpreting laws in ways that would delegate "major questions" — those with "vast economic or political significance" — to federal agencies unless Congress explicitly grants such authority.
The Supreme Court has already shown a willingness to reimagine the Chevron doctrine.
In a case decided last year, the high court said the EPA was not entitled to deference in its interpretation of definitions in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and overstepped its authority to impose regulations that could infringe on privately owned land.
The court also invoked the doctrine in 2022 when it ruled in favor of 18 Republican-led states, Mississippi's governor, and two coal mining companies that argued the EPA had no authority to subject their existing coal- and gas-fired power plants to new carbon emission limitations.
The court said that without express authority from Congress, the EPA could not make sweeping new emissions standards for plants that predated the EPA's new rules.
There are other challenges to federal agencies before the Supreme Court that could also limit their authority.
One targets the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a financial regulator that was created by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in the aftermath of the subprime housing meltdown and financial crisis in 2008.
Payday lenders, who brought the challenge, have argued that the CFPB's funding that it receives through the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that funding should be appropriated by Congress.
Some Supreme Court justices, however, sounded skeptical of the arguments made by the payday lenders during oral arguments last October.
CFPB director Rohit Chopra has told Yahoo Finance that if an attempt to invalidate his agency's funding is successful before the Supreme Court, it would add more uncertainty for the mortgage industry and create "a lot of headaches" for consumers.
"I think the whole financial markets are much better off with the CFPB there," Chopra told Yahoo Finance Live following the oral arguments in October. "I think if a CFPB had existed in the early 2000s, we wouldn't have had a subprime mortgage crisis."
Bankruptcy
Can corporate defendants use federal bankruptcy to shield themselves from legal peril? The Supreme Court will also consider this question in 2024.
The justices heard arguments last month in a case that could decide if the billionaire Sackler family that controlled OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma can use bankruptcy to protect its personal fortunes from future opioid-related liabilities.
At the heart of the case is the power of federal bankruptcy courts to sign off on settlement agreements that absolve parties outside the bankruptcy of legal responsibility without the consent of litigants.
The agreements, known as third-party releases, have been used in bankruptcy proceedings for decades to end mass tort litigation against insolvent companies — and to distribute their assets to injured victims.
Purdue filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2019 — under the pressure of thousands of lawsuits blaming it for fueling the opioid crisis — but none of the Sackler family members did.
In exchange for a release from such claims, the Sacklers agreed through a series of negotiations to pay $6 billion to opioid victims and their families, as well as to state and local governments. The funds are meant to compensate victims for opioid-related injuries and deaths and to help the governments establish aid programs to combat opioid addiction.
While a majority of the litigants have agreed to the settlement as a way to extract as much money as possible for their injuries, not all consent to the Sacklers sidestepping personal liability for their claims.
During arguments, justices across the political spectrum questioned whether Congress, by passing bankruptcy laws, meant to deprive personal injury victims of their right to sue third parties not subject to the bankruptcy proceedings.
"The Purdue Pharma decision from the Supreme Court could result in one of the most consequential bankruptcy decisions in over a decade," said George Singer, a partner at Holland & Hart.
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
