Supreme Court Advocacy Hub

City of Buffalo et al. v. Kia/Hyundai

The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

As one of the largest employers in the country, counties have a significant interest in cases like Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that could expand county liabilities as employers.

Perttu v. Richards

Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities.

San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

Lackey v. Stinnie

Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct, such as repealing a law, after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.

Bondi v. VanDerStok

Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.

Stanley v. City of Sanford

Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees.

EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.

Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Consumers’ Research, et al.

Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Consumers’ Research, et al. could jeopardize what is known as the Universal Service Fund (USF). Through the USF, the FCC has provided billions of dollars to local governments and residents, helping provide essential telecommunications and broadband services to unserved and underserved communities. FCC v. Consumers’ Research challenges the FCC’s legal authority behind the USF, putting multiple programs essential to equitable broadband deployment at risk.

Lindke v. Freed/O'Connor Ratcliff v. Garnier

Clear guidelines governing when public officials' use of personal social media accounts constitutes state action can help local governments to avoid liability without infringing on the First Amendment rights of their public officials or citizens.

Muldrow v. St. Louis

In a season of acute workforce shortages, the ability to make lateral transfers without fear of legal action is an important tool for county governments to ensure we have appropriate staffing to meet our various responsibilities for safeguarding the safety, health and wellbeing of our residents.

Sheetz v. El Dorado County

Exaction or impact fees are an important way for local governments to balance the benefits of growth with its impacts on the pre-existing community. Limiting the ability of counties to legislatively enact generally applicable development impact fees would impede our efforts to protect the health and welfare of their communities while ensuring that those who create the need for new community infrastructure fairly bear the costs.

City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson

As communities across the country address the complex and nuanced issues of housing shortages and homelessness crises, it is critical for localities to retain the ability to make tough policy choices unobstructed by court-issued mandates.

Gonzalez v. Trevino

This case has implications for the ease with which private citizens can file frivolous retaliatory arrest claims against county law enforcement, which could lead to costly litigation for cities and counties and a chilling effect on public safety enforcement by county agencies.

Chiaverini vs. City of Napoleon

When private citizens file meritless civil rights claims against police for alleged malicious prosecutions, counties can bear significant financial liability and practice of standard law enforcement may see a chilling effect.

1. Moore v. Harper

2. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

3. Tyler v. Hennepin County

4. Health & Hospital Corps. of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski 

5. Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General