Local Government Goes to Washington: Supreme Court Cases Affecting Local Government Entities and Officials
The United States Supreme Court constantly re-writes the rules for public entities and officials. Higher courts are tackling cases that affect local governments. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing free speech rules governing public officials in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (whether public officials violate the First Amendment if they block a constituent on social media) and Lindke v. Freed (whether public officials’ social media activity is governmental activity).
In this session from PRIMA 2024, speakers Benjamin Eggert (Partner and Co-Chair, Wiley Rein) and Kaitlin Fleming (Claims Attorney, Genesis and General Star) analyzed the effects of decisions recently ruled out by the Supreme Court. With a deep discussion about the impact of public entities, along with an evaluation of the pending challenges to local government practices, these experts helped identify opportunities for reducing exposure of Supreme Court suits.
Key objectives from this presentation:
- Public official’s social media activity
- Development fees
- Employee religious accommodations
- Civil forfeiture
- Employee transfers
- Election law
Supreme Court by the Numbers
- 61 cases are accepted by the United States Supreme Court.
- 32 decisions were issued as of June 8, 2024.
- The SCOTUS is expecting nearly 30 new cases in the next three weeks.
- 6 Supreme Court decisions reached within the year.
- States include Alabama, California, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania
- 4 decisions were 9-0
- 8 to 1 vote average
- 4 Justice-authored opinions
Supreme Court Cases Affecting Public Entities
Lindke v. Freed
Case background: The city manager’s social media feed was the central focus.
- James Freed’s publicly open Facebook account
- Kevin Lindke’s (city plaintiff) comments about pandemic response
- Deleted comments and blocking
Holding: Public officials must have (1) actual speaking authority and (2) use it in a social media exchange.
Effect: The rejection of a different rule that “appearance” of speaking authority implicated the First Amendment.
Implication: Speech made by a public official on a private, but open social media account is not government speech.
Sheetz v. El Dorado County
Case background: An outrageous litigation of $23,000+ in fees.
- El Dorado County was trying to manage growth and how roads were paid for.
- George Sheets applied for a permit to build a 1,800-square-foot prefabricated house.
- El Dorado County conditioned the permit on the payment of a $23,420 traffic impact mitigation fee based on location.
Issue decided: Whether legislatively imposed fees for development (such as traffic impact mitigation) violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- April 12, 2024
- 9-0 decision
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Holding: Legislatively imposed development fees must meet the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests.
Effect: Development fees legislatively enacted by local governments now require more judicial scrutiny.
Implication: Development fees should address and proportionately mitigate specific impacts of a proposed project.
Groff v. DeJoy
Case background: A government employee wanted to be cleared from working on Sundays.
- Gerald Groff, a Christian, wanted to observe the Sabbath on Sundays.
- Accommodations were initially workable, but not over time.
- When he was forced to work on Sunday, he resigned and sued.
Issue decided: Whether an employer must show significant difficult or expense to deny an employee religious accommodations under Title VII.
- June 29, 2023
- 9-0 decision
- Justice Samuel Alito
Holding: Employers must demonstrate substantial hardship, not minimal inconvenience.
Effect: Employers may have more instances in which accommodation may be needed unless they can better demonstrate hardship.
Implication: Decisions call for increased rigors for the HR processes along with closely examined policies.
Culley v. Marshall
Case background: This case focuses on what happens to seized vehicles of innocent owners.
- Halima Culley and Lena Sutton’s vehicles were seized under Alabama’s civil forfeiture laws.
- Cars were driven by son/friend. When they were pulled over by the police, officers discovered illegal drugs possessed by drivers.
- Both owners sued, but it took over a year to get their vehicles back.
Issue decided: Whether a government entity must hold a probable cause hearing before police may retain seized property in civil forfeiture proceedings.
- May 9, 2024
- 6-3 decision
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Holding: 14A requires a timely forfeiture hearing but not a separate probable cause hearing.
Effect: Expedited hearings are required.
Implication: Increase administrative burden as local governments should review and possibly overhaul their approach to civil forfeitures. The process is key.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Case background: The police department decided the need to transfer an employee.
- Louis PD transferred Sergeant Jantonya Muldrow from an intelligence position to a patrol position against her wishes.
- Muldrow had strong performance reviews.
- After the transfer, rank and pay remained the same, but the transfer altered responsibilities, perks, and work schedules.
Issue decided: Whether a job transfer that does not change pay or responsibilities can be adverse employment under Title VII.
- April 17, 2024
- 9-0 decision
- Justice Elena Kagan
Holding: Employees don’t need to identify significant harm to state a claim for discriminatory job transfers.
Effect: The court broadened protections for employers challenging job transfers under Title VII.
Implication: Local government employers should approach transfers with caution and ensure that they document the reasons for the transfer.
Moore v. Harper
Case background:
- North Carolina legislature drew new voting districts in 2021.
- The NC Supreme Court held that they were unconstitutional under NC law.
- Special masters drew new maps, which were challenged by the NC legislature.
Issue decided: Whether state courts oversee state legislatures in regulating federal elections—aka “independent state legislature theory”
- June 27, 2023
- 6-3 decision
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Effect: The traditional and historical system of checks and balances was reaffirmed and put in place.
Implication: Elections are as polarizing as they have ever been. State judicial oversight remains for local elections, which will be the focus of litigation.
Supreme Court Cases Still on the Docket
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (Homelessness)
An enforcement of local ordinances regulating camping on public property (argued April 22, 2024).
U.S. v Rahimi (Guns)
The federal statutes the prohibiting of firearm possession by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (argued November 23, 2023).
Murtha v. Missouri (Social Media)
The government addresses social media companies about misinformation (argued March 18, 2024).