Supreme Court expected to issue major decisions within two days
Rachel Schilke
Video Embed
The Supreme Court is expected to release long-awaited rulings on several high-profile cases as the summer session winds down.
The high court only ruled on one major case, Moore v. Harper, on Tuesday, leaving justices with a limited window to rule on cases relating to affirmative action, student loans, and the protection of religious beliefs, among others.
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS: WHAT NEWSOM HAS SAID AHEAD OF TASK FORCE’S FINAL PROPOSAL
Here are the four major court cases waiting for a decision before the Supreme Court recesses for the summer.
Affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
Among the most highly anticipated decision is the constitutionality of affirmative action, which is the practice of colleges and universities using race as a determining factor in admissions policies. The goal of affirmative action is to increase diversity on campuses, but the petitioners believe the practice violates the Constitution under the 14th Amendment.
Students for Fair Admissions sued the University of North Carolina and Harvard University, alleging the institutions’ policies discriminated against Asian Americans and white students. The cases are filled with anecdotal evidence about admissions processes and statistics on acceptance rates.
Higher education institutions have used affirmative action for decades, with several court cases serving as precedents. The universities being sued argued race is one of a handful of factors considered during the application process.
Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, who hold the majority, are likely to vote against affirmative action. If the Supreme Court votes in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, it will reverse the court’s 1978 ruling that allowed universities to consider race as one of their application factors.
Same-sex weddings and businesses: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
The high court is deciding whether it is constitutional to deny customers services over objections to same-sex marriage due to religious beliefs.
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, business owner Lorie Smith argued that a Colorado “public accommodation” law infringes on her religious beliefs, as the law bans discrimination on sexual orientation. She creates websites but does not want to be compelled to do so for a same-sex wedding.
During arguments, Supreme Court justices examined the free speech implications of the law and how the First Amendment intersects with LGBT rights broadly. The decision could have significant ramifications for religious liberty and the LGBT community.
Sunday shifts at USPS: Groff v. DeJoy
In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court will decide how far a business must go to accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees.
Former U.S. Postal Service worker Gerald Groff began to face disciplinary actions if he did not come to work on Sundays, the day he observed the Sabbath. USPS managers arranged for other workers to deliver packages on Sundays until July 18, before he was told he needed to work or would face the consequences.
A 1977 ruling from the Supreme Court over a similar matter ruled that an employer does not need to accommodate an employee’s wish not to work on the Sabbath if that would require the business to operate short-staffed or give premium wages to replace the workers. The court at the time said an employer should not have to bear a “de minimis,” or trifling burden.
Student loans: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown
All eyes are on the Supreme Court for the case involving the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program, which launched last August, aiming to cancel up to $20,000 in debt for over 40 million people holding federal student loans.
Six GOP-led states — Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, and South Carolina — sued the Biden administration and asked the justices to block the program, arguing it exceeds President Joe Biden’s legal authority.
In Department of Education v. Brown, the petitioners argued they were deprived of their “procedural rights” by the Biden administration because the White House didn’t allow the public to weigh in on the scope of its student loan forgiveness plan. The petitioners are partially or fully excluded from relief, their lawyers argued.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Supreme Court justices argued the case in February, determining whether the HEROES Act gives the secretary of education the ability to forgive federal student loans.
With a conservative majority, it is anticipated that the court will rule against Biden in Biden v. Nebraska. However, the justices also expressed doubts about whether the individual borrowers or the state plaintiffs had the standing to bring the lawsuits.