Seven cases to watch as Supreme Court session nears its end
Ryan King
Video Embed
Until now, the Supreme Court has been handing down decisions at a historically slow rate this session, but that will soon change as it filters through its outstanding cases ahead of the summer.
A large collection of hot-button cases remain on the docket encompassing everything from immigration and student loans to same-sex weddings and affirmative action. Now that the high court has wrapped up its oral arguments, it will begin unfurling those outstanding decisions over the coming weeks.
REPUBLICANS WORRY THESE THREE CHANGES TO DEBT CEILING BILL WILL SINK FUTURE PLANS
Here are seven things to watch as the Supreme Court heads into its final weeks this session.
Affirmative Action
Perhaps one of the most socially divisive cases the court has taken up since its abortion ruling last year has been its two cases related to affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North.
At the heart of both cases is the constitutionality of affirmative action, in which colleges and universities consider race and ethnicity to elevate disadvantaged students. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in February found 62% do not believe race and ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions.
Higher education institutions have used affirmative action for decades, and there is ample court precedent for it. Students for Fair Admissions cited research alleging that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s policies effectively discriminate against Asian Americans or white students.
To buttress their case, plaintiffs have leaned on anecdotal evidence about admission processes as well as statistics about acceptance rates. The defendants have maintained that race is one of a handful of factors that are considered during the admissions process.
Both cases have the possibility of overturning precedent, including the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed higher education institutions’ rights to consider race. The composition of the high court has grown considerably more conservative in the time since that decision was made.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness
President Joe Biden‘s battle with the high court could soon worsen if it deals a blow to his student loan forgiveness program. Biden unveiled his plan last year to wipe out up to $10,000 in federal student loans for those with an annual income of up to $125,000 and up to $20,000 erased for those who received Pell Grants during their schooling.
Last fall, millions of Americans signed up for that forgiveness plan, but it was quickly thrust into limbo after a coalition of six GOP states filed their challenges in court. The Supreme Court halted the program while it considers the constitutionality of the administration’s executive action in Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.
His actions were premised on the 2003 HEROES Act, which grants the executive power to relieve student loan debt in times of national emergency or war. In this case, that emergency is the COVID-19 pandemic. But Biden declared the pandemic “over” last year. The World Health Organization also said it was no longer an international health emergency last week.
Businesses and same-sex weddings
The question at the heart of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is whether business owners have the right to deny a customer service over religious objections to a same-sex wedding.
Business owner Lorie Smith is arguing that a Colorado “public accommodation” law banning discrimination on sexual orientation is trampling upon her religious beliefs. She produces websites but doesn’t want to be compelled to do so for same-sex weddings.
During oral arguments, justices examined the free speech implications of the law and how the First Amendment intersects with LGBTQ rights broadly. The decision could have profound ramifications for both religious liberty and the LGBTQ community.
Section 230
Conservatives have long denounced Big Tech over alleged censorship. Many have taken aim at Section 230, a 1990s-era policy that shields internet platform companies from liability that a publisher would face. Some have also contended that social media behemoths have become de facto publishers with their content moderation policies.
In two cases, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the court will consider the extent of protections stipulated in the three-decade-old policy. The Google case revolved around how the policy applies to algorithms that recommend content to users. And the Twitter case centers on how the policy applies to terrorism.
Both cases have the potential to dramatically transform free speech on the internet.
Adopting Native American children
In Brackeen v. Haaland, the court will assess a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which gives extended family members, tribal members, and, if no other options are available, another Native family; priority for adopting Native children.
One of the petitioners in the case — Chad and Jennifer Brackeen — almost had their adopted Navajo Nation child taken away from them due to the law. The case calls into focus the longstanding questions of Native American sovereignty in the United States.
Federal regulation of water pollution
For decades, the courts have grappled with questions about the parameters of the Clean Water Act. Sackett v. EPA marks the latest in that longstanding debate. At issue is an Idaho couple who ran afoul of the law when trying to build a home nearly 16 years ago.
The court could soon decide the type of definition that the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers should use when crafting and enforcing regulations on the “waters of the United States.” Waters that are subject to the Clean Water Act face tougher regulations.
Many farmers and developers have sought to have fewer types of water fall under that jurisdiction.
Deportation of illegal immigrants
In a pair of cases, Pugin v. Garland and Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, the court will examine a key issue at play in the scope of the federal government’s power in deporting illegal immigrants.
Up for consideration is whether a federal law that permits deportation for “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” extends to situations where there is not an open investigation or court case.
This is significant because many criminal proceedings revolve around state laws rather than federal law. As a result, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals often has to determine whether a state crime fits with a federal crime to use as justification for deportation.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
As the court begins unveiling its hotly anticipated decisions from its session, it has been dogged by a string of controversies. Revelations about Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch either receiving gifts or making major financial moves without disclosing them have rocked the high court.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on ethics in the Supreme Court. A chorus of critics, such as chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL), has called for higher standards and a stronger code of conduct for the high court.