2023 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 3 does apply to the office of president and Donald Trump's actions do violate it.

After winning their elections, both individuals used the pages created for their campaigns to post updates about the school district and to communicate with their constituents.

Christopher and Kimberly Garnier were two of those constituents, and they often would use the comments sections on O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane's pages to criticize their actions, sometimes in ways that the trustees considered annoying.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on this case, and in light of their holding in Lindke v. Freed, vacated and remanded it for further proceedings.

After the discussion concluded on the second day, Edward Trevino, the mayor of the city and a political ally of Rapelye's, asked Gonzalez for the petition.

Trevino notified the city's police department of the incident, which conducted an investigation and concluded that Gonzalez violated a Texas statute which prohibited tampering with government records.

In her suit, she claimed that she had reviewed the data for arrests under the anti-tampering statute, and that she was the first person to be charged with a violation of it for removing a nonbinding or expressive document.

She used this claim to show that her charge was politically motivated - that the mayor and police chief had essentially sought to find a crime that fit her.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that because she took possession of the petition in her binder, probable cause for the alleged crime existed, even if instances of other violations of that statute were rare.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court agreed with Gonzalez's argument that the Fifth Circuit was too narrow in their reading of the exception in Nieves v. Bartlett.

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurrence in which he argued that while the per curiam did not "say anything that is harmful to the law," he thought that Gonzalez's case should have been analyzed by looking at her Mens rea in taking the document, not whether her conduct compared to similar fact patterns which did not end in an arrest.