Supreme Court facing full docket 

Monday marks the start of the annual term for the Supreme Court of the United States. Most of the court’s docket was set as of this week’s preterm conference, painting a picture of what to expect this year.

On their first day, the justices will hear a case on whether private parties have standing to sue states over Medicaid funding, or whether only the federal government can do so. This could prove decisive in many lawsuits, such as Planned Parenthood’s fight to keep subsidies in Indiana and other states that have shut them out of Medicaid.

On Oct. 5, the court will hear a case over whether Christian schools are exempt from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s nondiscrimination authority. A church school will argue that it may hire teachers based on their beliefs because they fall under the “ministerial exception” to employment law — used for pastors and priests.

That same day, SCOTUS will also hear arguments on whether information in the public domain can be reclassified as copyrighted.

Nov. 7 will see arguments from a Jewish family who had a child in Jerusalem. They want his passport to read, “Jerusalem, Israel.” Federal law says parents can demand this, but President Barack Obama objects on the grounds that Congress has no authority to dictate his foreign policy.

The following day, the court will hear arguments on whether it violates the Fourth Amendment if police hide a GPS device on someone’s car without a search warrant, marking the newest technology controversy involving police powers.

November and January will also usher in several cases on pitting federal power versus state sovereignty, over such issues as the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

Early next year, the court will also consider the ability of private citizens to seek judicial review of Environmental Protection Agency actions that block their ability to use their own land.

SCOTUS will also consider a free-speech case asking whether Federal Communications Commission regulations barring expletives and nudity on TV violate the First Amendment.

Perhaps even more important are the issues not on the court’s calendar — at least not yet. There are no Second Amendment cases, although several parties in such cases petitioned for review. The justices are seeking additional information and could take one later. Gun-rights advocates should proceed cautiously, because it’s unclear at this point how much further the current membership of the court is willing to expand gun rights.

One of the most important of the not-yet-granted Sept. 26 cases is Davenport v. American Atheists. The 10th Circuit has decreed that all crosses on public land — including all roadside crosses marking a death on a highway — are unconstitutional establishments of religion. One of the best SCOTUS lawyers in America, former Texas Solicitor General (and current U.S. Senate candidate) Ted Cruz, has taken this case.

Another petition not yet decided is immigration, as Arizona is seeking Supreme Court review of its high-profile immigration law. The law was struck down last year by the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court will decide in about a month whether to take that case.

Finally, there is Obamacare. Several cases related to the new health care law are seeking Supreme Court review.

The National Federation of Independent Business petitioned SCOTUS on Tuesday in the national Florida case, which is the one justices will likely hear. It seems likely that the court will hear the case next spring.

The court’s term already presents a number of important national cases, with even bigger ones in the wings. So count on the Supreme Court to deliver plenty of big news stories this year.

Examiner legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, and analyzes Obamacare in “Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.”

About The Author

Ken Klukowski

Pin It

Speaking of...

More by Ken Klukowski

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation