The Supreme Court and the 2024 Election

Recent presidential elections have reshaped the Supreme Court. Of the 9 justices, Joe Biden nominated 1, Donald Trump 3, Barack Obama 2, and George W. Bush 2. Because of the ages of some of the justices and arguments floated to potentially expand the number of justices, whoever is elected President in 2024 may help determine the composition of the Court for years to come.

Supreme Court rulings profoundly affect our laws, constitutional rights, and everyday lives. Here are some of the most salient closely divided rulings from the past 15 years, rulings that could be extended or overturned depending on the composition of the Court, and that reflect the range of issues influenced by the Court. Although the justices do not represent political parties, they are listed as R if appointed by a Republican president, and D if appointed by a Democrat, to help provide context on how the political process intersects with the Court’s composition and decisions.

Abortion Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

Majority: 5 R; Minority: 3 D. 1 R supported a 15-week restriction but not overturning Roe v. Wade. Overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) by ruling that the right to an abortion is not constitutionally protected. This ruling opened the door to state and federal bans and restrictions.

Affirmative Action Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College (2023)

Majority: 6 R; Minority: 3 D, Ruled that race could not be considered as a factor in the college admissions process, although left open the possibility that a college could consider an applicant’s personal experience with discrimination. The ruling has since been used to challenge corporate diversity programs.

Campaign Finance Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Majority: 5 R; Minority: 4 D. Ruled that limits on independent political spending by unions and corporations are unconstitutional. This led to the creation of “superPACs,” which can accept unlimited money from donors to support a candidate.

Climate Change West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)

Majority: 6 R; Minority: 3 D. Overturned a 2007 decision and prohibited the government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

Criminal Immunity for Former Presidents Trump v. United States (2024)

Majority: 6 R; Minority: 3 D. Ruled that former presidents cannot be criminally charged for certain official actions. The Court asked a lower court to decide whether former President Trump’s pending federal criminal trial for plotting to subvert the 2020 election involves any protected official conduct. This ruling likely delayed this trial and two other state and federal criminal trials until after the election.

Environmental and Consumer Regulations Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
Majority: 6 R; Minority: 3 D. Overruled a 40-year precedent that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of laws where Congress didn’t specify every detail—puts in question environmental, consumer, health, labor, financial, and many other federal regulations.

Gun Regulation New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

Majority: 6 R: Minority: 3 D. Struck down a long-standing New York law requiring people to show a specific need to carry a firearm in public.

Gun Regulation Garland v. Cargill (2024)

Majority: 6 R: Minority: 3 D. Struck down a Trump executive order banning “bump stocks, ” devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire automatically.

Immigration Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of California (2019)

Majority: 4 D, 1 R; Minority: 4 R. Blocked attempt to strike down the DACA program. DACA gives temporary legal status to “Dreamers,” whose parents immigrated illegally and brought them to the U.S. as children, if the recipients have graduated from high school or had honorable military discharges. The court said the attempt to eliminate DACA didn’t follow the proper steps.

LGBTQ Rights Obergefell v. Hodges (2012)

Majority: 4 D, 1 R; Minority: 4 R. Ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, so states can’t stop same-sex couples from marrying.

Redistricting Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Majority: 5 R; Minority: 4 D. Upheld “gerrymandered” legislative and congressional district boundaries in North Carolina and Maryland. The Court ruled that they could not overrule state decisions on this issue and that legislators and governors may draw legislative and congressional district lines as they see fit, even to explicitly benefit their parties, but could not gerrymander based solely on race.

Redistricting Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

Majority: 6 R; Minority: 3 D. Allowed South Carolina to use a congressional map that a lower court had ruled impermissibly diluted Black voting rights, making it harder to challenge districts on grounds of racial gerrymandering nationwide.

Student Loans Biden v. Nebraska (2023)

Majority: 6 R; Minority 3 D. Held that Congress did not authorize the U.S. Secretary of Education to cancel $430 billion in student debt based on income. 

Unions Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

Majority: 5 R; Minority: 4 D. Ruled mandatory public-sector union fees unconstitutional, overturning various state laws and a 1977 Supreme Court ruling. This made a public employee’s decision to pay union dues entirely voluntary, although unions must still represent all members, including those who choose not to pay dues.

Voting Rules Husted v. A Philip Randolph Institute (2017)

Majority: 5 R; Minority: 4 D. Held that Ohio didn’t violate the Voting Rights Act by striking voters from the registration rolls if they didn’t vote for four years and failed to return a mailed address confirmation form, a policy that disproportionately affects voters who move more often. The Court said that this was legal because Ohio gave voters the chance to mail back the form, but that it would be illegal to strike voters from the rolls solely for not voting.

Voting Rules Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Majority: 5 R; Minority: 4 D. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting and was renewed in 1982 and 2006. Section 4(b) required states or counties with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting rules. The Court ruled this unconstitutional, saying the formula for deciding which states it applied to was no longer relevant to current conditions.

guides.vote is a nonpartisan effort to show where candidates stand and illuminate related issues, with links to credible sources. See our guides to 2024 races. We do not support or oppose any political party or candidate for office. To download a PDF of this guide, click here.