U.S. Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 Quiz

Answer: Roe v. Wade

In May 2022, the American media reported shocking news: a draft of the Dobbs opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, had leaked and abortion was no longer recognized as a constitutional right. Abortion has been one of the most controversial issues in American life for decades. After Donald Trump won the 2016 election and was able to appoint three conservative Supreme Court justices, many predicted that the Court would shift to the right. The leak seemed to confirm that the Court was posed to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two Supreme Court cases that found a constitutional right to abortion through substantive due process.

This was shocking to many, not only because of the dramatic effect it would have on American life and the law (many states immediately passed laws severely restricting abortion after the ruling) but also because the leak itself was unprecedented. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.

Answer: Justice Thomas

Concepcion v. United States had the Court examined whether district courts could take into account "intervening factors" in reducing a criminal sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. That bipartisan law was a major step in criminal justice reform and, among other things, proposed reduced sentences for certain crimes.

The Court had to decide whether a lower court could or had to reevaluate the sentencing of Carlos Concepcion, a man who had been convicted of drug offenses and was seeking a sentence reduction through the Act. Justice Sotomayor concluded in the majority opinion that the First Step Act does allow lower courts to take into account such factors in deciding whether to reduce a sentence. In addition to Justices Breyer and Kagan, Sotomayor was also joined by two justices who often rule opposite to her: Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch.

Answer: West Virginia

West Virginia is well-known for its coal production. This case, which featured a collection of states and private organizations as plaintiffs against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was published as West Virginia v. EPA. The issue was connected to the Clean Air Act, and more specifically the Clean Power Plan. Though the Trump administration's EPA had relaxed the rules, a lower court vacated that change. This prompted multiple states and organizations to bring suit.

Like in several other opinions in this term, the Court ruled 6-3, with the conservative and liberal justices voting all together. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion concluded that Congress did not authorize the EPA to impose the emissions caps that the Clean Power Plan required.

Answer: Football coach

Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in this widely publicized case. The situation involved Joseph Kennedy, a football coach at a Washington high school. The coach would silently and shortly pray on the field after each game, and he was soon voluntarily joined by other players. The coach also participated in team prayers inside the locker rooms. The school district asked Kennedy to refrain from leading these prayers and insisted that he only prayed by himself after all students had left. Eventually, this resulted in him losing his job and he sued.

The Supreme Court rejected the school's argument that the coach was violating the Constitution's Establishment Clause (which bans the establishment of religion by the state, which was relevant because this was a public school). Instead, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the coach's rights were violated because his private religious expression was protected. The three liberal justices dissented.

Answer: Immigration

Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, which originally began as Barr v. Aleman Gonzalez since William Barr was the Attorney General when the suit was brought, was a case involving questions of immigration law. This case, as well as the companion case Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, primarily focused on how and for how long immigrants could be detained in the U.S. The precedent was set by the 2001 case of Zadvydas v. Davis, where the Court decided that the government could not detain unremovable immigrants for more than six months.

In the 2022 case, the Court was divided in interpreting the law, and decided that lower courts could not hear requests for injunctive relief from the class of plaintiffs in this case.

Answer: Oklahoma

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta was a controversial case, which is why the Court's votes were narrowly split in a 5-4 decision. The Court was asked to determine if Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Native man who committed a crime (child neglect) on Native American territories, could be prosecuted by the Oklahoma state government. Justice Kavanaugh, for the majority, said that the federal and state governments have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Natives even if they commit a crime in Native lands.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by the Court's three liberal justices at the time (Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan), wrote a dissenting opinion where he lamented that the Court was authorizing the breach of the government's supposed commitment to not interfere with Indian tribes.

Answer: Doctors prescribing opioids

Ruan v. United States, which was consolidated with Kahn v. United States, involved a doctor who had been criminally charged and convicted for the violation of several federal drug statutes. Xiulu Ruan, a doctor in Alabama, had been prescribing opioids to their patients at very high rates. Even though the physicians argued that they did so in accordance with medical standards, the government (and later the jury) disagreed.

In an opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court ruled in the doctor's favor. The opinion vacated the lower court's convictions and explained that the government's interpretation of "mens rea" (the requisite state of mind to be charged with a crime) was erroneous. Breyer argued that the statute required a mens rea of "knowingly or intentionally", rather than focusing on subjective belief or intent.

Answer: Remain in Mexico policy

The Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, was originally implemented by the Trump administration in 2018. This required that asylum seekers at the U.S. border stay in Mexico while their requests were being processed. Shortly after the 2020 presidential elections, the new Biden administration moved to end the policy. However, the states of Texas and Missouri sued in order to keep the policy in place.

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4 and through a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the President did have authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to end the Remain in Mexico policy. Justices Alito and Barrett both filed dissenting opinions.

Answer: Yes

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety involved a federal law, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which was passed in 1994 to protect military members from employment discrimination. Leroy Torres, a veteran who worked for the Texas Department of Public Safety before he was deployed to Iraq, applied for a different position upon his return due to an illness he developed while away. Torres sued his former employer under USERRA, but an appellate court sided with the Department of Public Safety on sovereign immunity grounds.

In what would become his last majority opinion as a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer said Torres had a right to sue under USERRA, and therefore claims under USERRA superseded a state's sovereign immunity, because Congress had exercised its authority properly.

Answer: Pro-gun groups

The issue of gun control is one of the most controversial ones in the United States. The debate often comes from differing interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which gives citizens (more concretely, "a well regulated Militia"), the right "to keep and bear arms". Historically, conservatives have advocated for fewer gun control measures, while more liberal-minded citizens mostly believe that there should at least be some restrictions to carry and purchase firearms.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law that imposed certain requirements on applicants for a "concealed carry" license. Justice Thomas, backed by the Court's conservative justices, said that citizens had the right to carry a gun for self-defense, and that this New York law was infringing on that right. Groups like the National Rifle Association celebrated the outcome, while those seeking increased gun regulation saw this as a major setback.