Five Supreme Court decisions, from 2019 to 2023, show the kinds of questions the Court has taken up in this century: whether the government gave its real reason, how the First Amendment protects religious and personal expression, what a voting rule must do to be unlawful, and how a court decides a gun-licensing case.
The census citizenship question
Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), decided June 27, 2019. In March 2018 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that he would reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census at the request of the Department of Justice, which wanted citizenship data to enforce the Voting Rights Act. States, cities and other groups sued in federal court in New York. Chief Justice Roberts, for the Court, held that at least some of the challengers had standing, that the Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and through it the Secretary, to ask about citizenship, and that the Secretary's decision is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court then sent the case back to the agency. The Voting Rights Act rationale, the only reason the Secretary gave, "seems to have been contrived," and "Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise."
Foster care and the Free Exercise Clause
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), decided June 17, 2021. Catholic Social Services had contracted with Philadelphia to provide foster care services for over 50 years. The City refused to contract with it unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Chief Justice Roberts, for the Court, held that the refusal violates the Free Exercise Clause. The Court applied the rule of Employment Division v. Smith: laws that burden religion incidentally are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny if they are neutral and generally applicable. The City's non-discrimination requirement was not generally applicable, because the contract let the Commissioner grant exceptions at the Commissioner's "sole discretion."
Voting rules in Arizona
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), decided July 1, 2021. Arizona does not count a ballot cast in the wrong precinct, and a state law, H.B. 2023, makes it a crime for most people to knowingly collect another person's early ballot. The Democratic National Committee and affiliates argued that both rules had a disparate effect on American Indian, Hispanic and African-American voters in violation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that H.B. 2023 was enacted with discriminatory intent. Justice Alito, for the Court, held that neither rule violates §2 and that H.B. 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. The Court did not announce a test for every §2 challenge to a time, place or manner voting rule. It identified "guideposts" for deciding these cases.
Carrying a handgun in public
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), decided June 23, 2022. New York allowed an unrestricted license to carry a concealed handgun only if the applicant showed "proper cause," meaning a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community. Brandon Koch and Robert Nash applied on the basis of a generalized interest in self-defense and were denied. Justice Thomas, for the Court, held that the proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court also rejected the two-step framework the courts of appeals had developed, which combined history with means-end scrutiny. When the Second Amendment's plain text covers a person's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it, and the government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
A website designer and a state anti-discrimination law
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), decided June 30, 2023. Lorie Smith wanted to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include wedding websites, and worried that Colorado would use its anti-discrimination law to require her to create messages she disagrees with. She and the State stipulated that she is willing to work with all people and "will gladly create custom graphics and websites" for clients of any sexual orientation. Justice Gorsuch, for the Court, held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
What the five decisions show
Department of Commerce turned on the reasons an agency gave for what it did. Fulton turned on exceptions the City could grant at its discretion. Brnovich turned on the text of a federal statute, and Bruen on the text of the Second Amendment read with history. 303 Creative turned on the First Amendment and on facts the parties agreed to. This post covers five decisions, and it does not cover the Court's other cases since 2000.
Sources
- Department of Commerce v. New York (2019): Supreme Court of the United States
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021): Supreme Court of the United States
- Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021): Supreme Court of the United States
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022): Supreme Court of the United States
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023): Supreme Court of the United States
Updated November 2026.
This post was rewritten with AI (Claude) and reviewed by an editor before publication.
