Last Month at the Supreme Court | 2024 Term Conclusion: Part I

Decisions, Decisions: A Landmark Term Comes to a Close

Part I of the final Last Month at the Supreme Court edition for the 2024 Term highlights the outcomes of several pivotal decisions that will reverberate across industries and institutions. Widely regarded as one of the most consequential Terms in recent memory, the Court’s rulings span fundamental questions about the role of government, the reach of federal agencies, and the rights of individuals and businesses.

This edition covers a broad spectrum of high-impact decisions, including:

• • The evidentiary burden in reverse discrimination claims
  • Jurisdictional rules for small refinery challenges under the Clean Air Act
  • The future of judicial deference to agency factual findings and procedural interpretations
  • Economic loss thresholds in federal wire fraud prosecutions
  • Standing and mootness in class certification for damages
  • The limits of agency power in civil enforcement actions
  • Procedural standing to challenge agency decisions
  • Federal appellate procedures for reopened cases
  • The scope of ADA protections for individuals

The Decision Alerts below offer in-depth analysis of these cases and their implications for your organization. Click through for detailed insights on each case.

Stay tuned for Part II of the final edition, coming soon. For further information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, Kyle Asher, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, or Ryan VanOver.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Calls for Judicial Deference to Agencies’ Factual Findings and Interpretation of Procedural Requirements

In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme Court unanimously determined 8-0 that the D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the substantial judicial deference required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The D.C. Circuit had interpreted NEPA as requiring the STB to consider environmental effects beyond its regulatory purview—specifically, the potential impacts of upstream oil extraction and downstream refining—before approving the construction of a railway. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted

On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the State of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private Texas-based company involved in oil and gas extraction and production, lack standing to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to license a private nuclear waste storage facility in West Texas. Writing for the majority in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, Justice Kavanaugh concluded that neither Texas nor Fasken qualified as “aggrieved parties” under the Hobbs Act. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Retirees Cannot Bring a Claim Under the ADA as a “Qualified Individual”

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Court held 7-2 that a retiree is not a “qualified individual” under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as the statute applies only to current employees or those actively seeking employment. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Reverse Discrimination Plaintiffs

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous employment law decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group. The decisive Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s imposition of a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud

If you get what you paid for, can you still cry fraud? The Supreme Court answered that question in Kousisis v. United States, unanimously holding that the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, does not require a scheme to cause financial loss. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett affirmed that intent to harm is not a necessary element of wire fraud, thereby significantly expanding the statute’s reach. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Agencies’ Interpretations of the Hobbs Act Do Not Bind District Courts in Civil Enforcement Proceedings

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act, which grants federal courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review agency orders, does not prevent district courts from independently evaluating an agency’s interpretation of the law in civil enforcement proceedings. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Eases Appeal Rules for Litigants Finding Missed Notice Unnecessary After Reopened Period

In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court in Parrish v. United States held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline—but before a district court formally reopens the appeal period—is not required to file a second notice once the appeal period is reopened. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: The D.C. Circuit Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Small Refinery Exemption Challenges Under the Clean Air Act

In EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refin., L.L.C., the Supreme Court ruled that all challenges to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denials of small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions under the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program must be brought exclusively in the D.C. Circuit. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas—joined by seven other Justices—held that while the denials may affect individual refineries, they rest on determinations with “nationwide scope or effect,” triggering D.C. Circuit jurisdiction under the Act. Read the full synopsis here.