Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
Sharing the county perspective on key Supreme Court cases
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.
2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
NACo Legal Advocacy: 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.
NACo Legal Advocacy: 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 (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok
Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.
NACo Legal Advocacy: 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.
NACo Legal Advocacy: 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.
Supreme Court News and Analysis for Counties
Explore Past Supreme Court Terms
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.
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.
Supreme Court Review for Local Governments: 2023-2024 Term
This webinar is hosted in partnership with the National League of Cities.
Navigating Social Media as a Local Leader in the Wake of Recent SCOTUS Decision
This webinar is hosted in partnership with NLC.
Supreme Court Preview for Local Governments: 2023-2024 Term
Hosted by the Local Government Legal Center (LGLC), join legal experts in a discussion of the new Supreme Court term and what decisions local governments should watch.
Supreme Court Review for Local Governments: 2022-2023 Term: Cohosted by the National League of Cities
Hosted by the Local Government Legal Center (LGLC), join legal experts in a discussion of the Supreme Court’s important decisions of the term impacting local governments. The Supreme Court will rule on several monumental cases this term, including on issues related to:
- Whether the First Amendment allows for exceptions to anti-discrimination ordinances
- The Independent State Legislature Theory
- A new test for Waters of the United States
- An important Title VII / employment law case
- And more
The LGLC is a coalition of national local government organizations formed in 2023 by the National Association of Counties (NACo), National League of Cities (NLC) and International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) 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. Visit the Local Government Legal Center to learn more.
Speakers:
- Aileen McGrath, Partner at Akin Gump. Drafted an amicus brief on behalf of NLC, NACo, and IMLA in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
- John Korzen, the Director of Appellate Advocacy Clinic at Wake Forest Law School. Drafted an amicus brief on behalf of NLC, NACo, and IMLA in Moore v. Harper and and NLC and IMLA in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.
National Membership Call: Unpacking Supreme Court Decisions on Waters of the U.S. and Property Tax Forfeiture Laws
On May 25, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decisions in two major cases impacting county governments. 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. 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, a decision that will impact counties in at least 13 states. Join NACo for a membership call unpacking these rulings and their implications for county governments moving forward.
How Will Upcoming Supreme Court Action Impact Local Elections Administration?
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, a landmark case asking the court to decide whether state legislatures alone have the authority to oversee federal elections without interference by state judicial or executive branches. Given the significant role that local governments play in overseeing and administering federal, state and local elections, the Moore v. Harper case stands to significantly impact cities and counties. Join the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the National League of Cities (NLC) for an educational webinar with SCOTUSblog’s James Romoser to break down the background of this historic case and its potential ramifications for local elections administration.
Sign up for email updates
Complete the form to receive the latest Supreme Court news impacting counties.
Program Contact
Paige Mellerio
Advocacy Action Hub
Through NACo, advocate for county priorities in federal policy making. Find our latest advocacy toolkits, federal policy analysis and more.