Supreme Court roundup: The top five decisions impacting county governments in the 2022-2023 term
Author
Upcoming Events
Related News
Key Takeaways
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its final decisions of the 2022–2023 term. The Court’s 57 rulings touched topics ranging from free speech, redistricting, the environment, student loans, immigration and more. Through our partnership with the Local Government Legal Center, NACo submitted amicus briefs to advocate for county interests in several cases before the Court. Read on to learn about the term’s top five rulings impacting county governments:
1. Moore v. Harper | County elections administration
The Court rejected, 6-3, the argument that state legislatures have sole authority over federal elections, preserving county flexibility and authority in local elections administration.
2. Sackett v. EPA | Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
The Court unanimously agreed the wetlands in question do not fall under the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). The majority ruled, 5-4, in favor of a new, narrower definition of WOTUS limiting the types of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). While the decision restricts the definition of WOTUS, counties need further clarity from our federal partners on how future CWA regulations will impact county-owned water infrastructure.
3. Tyler v. Hennepin County | Property tax forfeitures
The Court prohibited, 9-0, local governments from keeping excess profits from the sale of tax-forfeited properties, which could impact property tax revenue for counties in at least 21 states. However, the decision protects important county enforcement mechanisms for property tax delinquency such as fines, interest and property seizure.
4. HHC of Marion County v. Talevski | County-owned nursing homes
The Court affirmed, 7-2, that private individuals may sue state and local governments for civil rights damages under programs authorized by the federal spending clause, including the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act. As a result, counties operating nursing homes with Medicaid and Medicare dollars or administering other federal spending clause programs may see an increase in costly lawsuits.
5. Groff v. DeJoy | County employment law
The Court created, 9-0, a more rigorous standard for all employers, including county governments, to deny religious accommodation requests from workers. Counties will need to revisit employment policies and procedures to ensure they comply with the new requirement that they make religious accommodations unless doing so would impose a “substantial” cost.
Attachments
Related News
NACo submits comments on 2030 Census Address Update Program
On April 20, 2026, NACo submitted formal comments to the U.S. Census Bureau on the proposed reinstatement of the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Operation for the 2030 Census. The Bureau had issued a Federal Register notice in February 2026 opening a 60-day public comment period on the program's design before submitting it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Senate passes budget resolution kicking off reconciliation 2.0 to fund DHS and CBP
On April 21, U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unveiled a budget resolution to advance a party-line reconciliation package focused on immigration enforcement and funding for agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The resolution is the first step in a two-part process aimed at producing final legislation by June 1.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Chatrie v. United States
On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chatrie v. United States which asks the court if and when the collection of data through geofencing constitutes a violation of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. It specifically focuses on whether the execution of a geofence warrant, issued by a judge and directing a third-party provider to disclose location history data for devices present near the scene of a crime during a limited time window, constitutes an unreasonable search.