Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
Upcoming Events
Related News
Through this hub NACo works to raise awareness of the importance of Supreme Court cases to county governments and help shape the outcome of cases of significance at the Supreme Court through persuasive and effective advocacy.
Tagged In:
Jump to Section
As the U.S. Supreme Court addresses some of the most complex public policy issues of the day, it is essential that county officials are aware of the Supreme Court’s docket and offer our perspectives on the practical, frontline realities on county-related legal issues.
Through our partnership with the Local Government Legal Center, NACo works to raise awareness of the importance of Supreme Court cases to county governments and help shape the outcome of cases of significance at the Supreme Court through persuasive and effective advocacy.
Current Supreme Court Term: 2026-2027
Explore Past Supreme Couty Terms
St. Mary’s Catholic Parish v. Roy
This case that could affect counties’ ability to enforce neutral, generally applicable ordinances in zoning, land use, employment, tax administration, and public health without facing strict-scrutiny challenged under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that protects religious practice from government interference.
Suncor Energy v. Boulder County
The case asks whether federal law prevents local governments from pursuing state-law claims seeking damages for costs associated with climate-related impacts. It has broader implications for counties if the Court to adopts federal preemption principles that would affect when local governments may use state law to recover costs from private parties in other types of litigation.
Jouppi v. Alaska
In Jouppi v. Alaska, the ruling could affect how state and local governments impose and defend fines and property forfeitures under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.
Grand v. City University Heights
At the center of the case is a procedural question known as finality: whether a local government must first reach a final or settled decision about how its zoning rules apply before a federal court can consider certain constitutional claims arising from that decision.
Chatrie v. United States
This case could have significant implications for counties in the realm of county data use and collection. A broad ruling could create numerous burdens and difficulties for counties and their operations.
Monsanto Company v. Durnell
Monsanto v. Durnell considers a preemption issue that carries substantial implications for counties. The legal doctrine implicated is federal preemption, which comes from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution that outlines that federal law is the 'supreme law of the land' and that state laws that conflict with federal law are not law.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering when individuals who have been convicted of violating a local ordinance may later bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging that law. The answer will directly affect counties, which routinely enforce ordinances related to public safety, land use, elections, public spaces and other aspects of local governance.
William Trevor Case v. State of Montana
The question at hand is how the “emergency-aid” exemption to the Fourth Amendment is defined and whether it should require “probable cause,” a higher legal threshold that would be needed to justify officers entering the premises of a home in an emergency-aid scenario.
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.
Moore v. Harper
The Court rejected the argument, known as the Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT), that state legislatures have exclusive power to set rules regarding federal elections. This important ruling preserves the authority, flexibility and discretion needed by county governments to fulfill our duty to administer free and fair elections and maintain the integrity and security of elections at the local level.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case revolving around the definition of the ‘waters of the United States’ or WOTUS, the Court‘s ruling for the petitioner narrows the scope of what kinds of waters the federal government can regulate under the Clean Water Act.
Tyler v. Hennepin County
In Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Court held that local governments are not entitled to keep surplus equity from the sale of tax-forfeited properties.
Health & Hospital Corps. of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski
The decision in this case affirms the Seventh Circuit’s holding that residents in Medicaid-funded nursing homes have the right to seek relief in federal court when state or local officials do not meet a certain quality of care. In its decision, the Court affirms that private parties can sue for alleged rights violations under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA) under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, even though the FNHRA is authorized under the federal Spending Clause.
Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General
The Court unanimously ruled in favor of a postal worker who sued the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for failing to accommodate his religious beliefs when penalizing his refusal to work Sunday shifts. The case will now return to the lower courts, which must consider the arguments under a more rigorous standard for public employers to meet in order to legally deny religious accommodations requests.
The Local Government Legal Center
The Local Government Legal Center (LGLC) is a coalition of national local government organizations formed in 2023 to provide education to local governments regarding the Supreme Court and its impact on local governments and local officials and to advocate for local government positions at the Supreme Court in appropriate cases.
Sign up for email updates
Complete the form to receive the latest Supreme Court news impacting counties.