The Supreme Court Has More Than Donald Trump on Its Docket This Month | Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a number of important cases in early 2024 with several of them set for oral argument in January. It truly is, from the shared perspective of those of us who watch the court's every move, poised to be an exceptional month, with four cases and one elephant in the room ready to go.

Let's deal with our room elephant first.

The big wild card for January and the next few months will be any and all cases related to former President Donald J. Trump and the 2024 election.

The Supreme Court is poised to hear cases that could and should impact whether Trump is legally permitted to be the GOP candidate in the 2024 presidential election. These cases will primarily focus on issues related to criminal indictments and the 14th Amendment.

In holiday season news, the Supreme Court denied the request of special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track review as to whether Trump is immune from prosecution. This was followed just before the new year holiday weekend by a Colorado GOP request to the Supreme Court to intervene after the state's top court decided, also in December, to keep Trump off the ballot there because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol.

On Tuesday, just one day into the new year, Trump's counsel made a final pitch to a Washington State appellate court set for a hearing next week on this immunity issue. The December momentum in these Trump cases is now set to go into hyperdrive.

There's really no other way to say it: the Trump cases are going to take all the oxygen out of the room. The outcome of these cases will carry substantial consequences for Trump's candidacy in the 2024 presidential election and will be sure to exhaust us all as we follow them round by round.

As attorney Michael Epstein observed, "Despite the inevitable distraction of constant media attention on the Trump cases, the Supreme Court's ultimate task is to assess the validity of lower court decisions, which will significantly influence the landscape of presidential politics over the next year."

This isn't even close to an overstatement. What the Supreme Court ultimately has the power to do here is to determine who will and won't be on the GOP ballot for the November presidential election. With the most recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll giving Trump his largest lead to date (62 percent of likely Republican voters back Trump, with Nikki Haley in a distant second at 13 percent), what remains to be seen is whether the voice of the people and the Supreme Court are aligned on the question of whether Donald J. Trump should again be a candidate for president.

Trump issues aside, the Supreme Court resumes their already-set oral arguments on Monday, Jan. 8, with Smith v. Arizona, a case concerning the Sixth Amendment, set for the next day.

This case raises the issue of whether it's permissible to use substitute forensic analyst testimony when the original testing analyst is unavailable for trial. Smith's conviction for state drug offenses was partially based on substitute analyst testimony identifying the suspected drugs as controlled substances.

During the trial, the defense objected on confrontation grounds—the opportunity for a defendant to confront their accuser—preserving the constitutional issue for appeal. The Court's decision could influence the use of substitute analyst testimony in criminal cases, carrying implications for the legal landscape across different jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court took up this case to finally settle the ongoing debate on whether the Confrontation Clause permits the inclusion of substitute forensic analyst testimony.

The Confrontation Clause grants a person accused of a crime the right to question and challenge the statements made by witnesses who are testifying against them.

This rule is in place to make sure that a person is not found guilty just because of written evidence, and it gives them a chance to dispute the testimony presented against them. This issue is crucial for the rights of criminal defendants to cross-examine witnesses and the admissibility of testimonial evidence under the Sixth Amendment.

On Jan. 16, the court will hear arguments in DeVillier v. Texas, a dispute over property rights and the application of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.

Richie Devillier, a Texas farmer, claimed that the Texas Department of Transportation's actions led to flooding on his family's land, causing significant damage to their property. The central issue is whether the DeVilliers have the right to seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees "just compensation" for takings.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case to decide whether people whose property is taken without payment can get help from the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which prevents private property to be taken for public use without "just compensation."

This case is not just about property rights; it's also about how much protection states have from federal claims. The decision in DeVillier could affect whether property owners can ask for compensation when the government does something that affects their property. The fact that the Supreme Court is taking on this case shows they understand the importance of sending a clear message about property rights and the Constitution when it comes to the government taking property.

From my perspective, the most important case to be heard in January is one I wrote about in The Hill back in the fall.

Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, which will be heard Jan. 17, is a case regarding the Chevron doctrine, which gives federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous statutes.

The case involves a group of commercial fishermen who sued the National Marine Fisheries Service after the service promulgated a rule that required the industry to fund at-sea monitoring programs at an estimated cost of $710 per day.

The significance of the Supreme Court's decision in this case lies in its potential to either overturn Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council or provide clarity on the doctrine's application to statutory silence on a particular issue. The outcome holds serious consequences for the authority of federal agencies in interpreting and implementing regulations. This case is one of the most important in the entire Court term because of its potential impact on the controversial and influential Chevron doctrine.

The Chevron Doctrine, also called Chevron deference, is a legal guideline for how courts should handle situations where laws are unclear. It comes from a 1984 case. According to this doctrine, if a law is unclear, the court should trust and accept the interpretation provided by a government agency, as long as it seems reasonable. This is because it is believed that Congress has given agencies the power to interpret laws that are not clear. This doctrine is crucial in administrative law, and people have been discussing and examining it for decades.

The January cases encompass a diverse array of crucial legal and constitutional issues. They are essential content not just for Supreme Court enthusiasts but for anyone intrigued by law and politics. January is poised to become one of the most pivotal months in recent Supreme Court history.

About Aron Solomon

A Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, Aron Solomon, JD, is the chief strategy officer forAmplify. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. Aron has been featured in Newsweek, Fast Company, Fortune, Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today, ESPN, Today's Esquire, TechCrunch, The Hill, BuzzFeed, Venture Beat, The Independent, Fortune China, Yahoo!,ABA Journal,Law.com,The Boston Globe, and many other leading publications across the globe.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.