The Supreme Court is poised to have a blockbuster 2021.
Since it began its October term, the court has already weighed in on several big issues. The day before Thanksgiving, it found that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus restrictions placed an unfair burden on houses of worship — the first in a series of favorable religious freedom nods. The court in December decided against taking up a challenge to President Trump’s order excluding illegal immigrants from the census, setting the stage for future fights.
There’s much more to come in the spring, and with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court is expected to swing in a decidedly conservative direction. Below is a list of the biggest Supreme Court cases teed up for next year.
Gay rights and religious liberty
In one of the first cases argued since Barrett’s confirmation, the court weighed a Catholic-run foster care agency’s religious beliefs against the city of Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination laws. The case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, is the latest chapter in an ever-escalating war over the balance between protections for religious groups and gay and transgender activists. It arose in 2018 when Philadelphia severed ties with the Catholic group, alleging that the church’s teachings, which do not recognize gay marriages as legitimate, threaten the rights of gay couples seeking to raise children. The agency countered that it has a First Amendment right to practice its beliefs.
When the two sides presented arguments in November, the court was skeptical of Philadelphia’s claims. Multiple justices pointed out that although the Catholic group did not recognize gay marriage, it had never encountered a situation where it had to refuse working with a gay couple. Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that it seemed like Philadelphia was “looking for a fight.”
The case could have larger religious liberty implications if the court decides in the agency’s favor. Attorneys for the group asked it to revisit the landmark 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, in which the court ruled that generally applicable laws do not violate religious freedom. If the court rolls back Smith, Fulton could prove to be a milestone: “The Hobby Lobby of religious liberty,” John Bursch, a senior counsel at the nonprofit law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Washington Examiner.
The constitutionality of Obamacare
Since its passage in 2010, former President Barack Obama’s signature achievement has been subject to a slew of legal challenges. In this latest one, California v. Texas, a Texas-led group of 20 states allege that after Congress in 2017 removed Obamacare’s individual mandate — no longer requiring people to pay a minimum tax for health insurance — the entire law’s legitimacy is in question. Their position is backed by the Trump administration, which throughout the president’s term has pushed for dismantling Obamacare. If the court finds the law unconstitutional, more than 20 million people could lose their health coverage.
The court upheld the individual mandate in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, arguing that its power, and, by extension, the legitimacy of the entire act, lay in Congress’ taxing power. In Texas’s view, this means that with no tax, the rest of the act must fall, too.
But during arguments in November, the court signaled that individual mandate or no, it will do its best to keep the remainder of Obamacare.
“This is a straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” Kavanaugh told a lawyer defending Obamacare, “meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place.”
Compensation for college athletes
The NCAA’s control over how student-athletes are compensated has long been a hot topic among sports fans — and one that the league has sought to keep out of the courts. But in the past few years, many states have increasingly pressured the league to allow players to receive direct compensation for their names, images, and likenesses. The NCAA responded in 2019 by allowing loosening those restrictions, with new rules set to go into effect in 2021.
But in December, the court agreed to consider whether it will relax even further the NCAA’s control on how players are rewarded for their work. The case, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, an appeal raised by the league, will decide if the league can stop colleges from giving athletes education-related benefits for their work. Although a popular idea, the NCAA wrote in its petition that a ruling in its favor will “fundamentally transform” the character of the league, blurring “the traditional line between college and professional athletes.”
The court has not yet set a date for arguments.
Legal protections for software code
Google and Oracle have been locked in a legal battle since 2010, when the software developer alleged that Google had infringed on its copyrighted Java platform when the tech giant developed its Android operating system. Oracle originally sought a $9 billion settlement from Google, but, as the smartphone industry’s growth has exploded in the past decade, it now is expected to request much more.
The court heard arguments in October and indicated it is seeking a solution by which it can protect software codes without upending the tech industry. The case has drawn significant attention from film, music, and publishing industries, with many prominent figures throwing support behind Oracle, alleging a similar abuse of their materials by Google. Many tech companies, including Microsoft, backed up Google, pointing to its fair use claims.
Reparations for Holocaust survivors
American courts typically avoid entanglement in foreign litigation, but this term, the Supreme Court has heard three cases in which international plaintiffs are seeking a trial for foreign atrocities in the United States. In the first two, Republic of Hungary v. Simon and Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, Holocaust survivors argue that they should be allowed to sue for reparations in American courts. In the third, Nestlé USA v. Doe, former African child slaves are attempting to extract damages from American chocolate companies.
In all three cases, the court appeared undecided on how to act. On the one hand, the plaintiffs argue that the crimes committed against them fall under an expropriation exception that allows U.S. courts to intervene in overseas disputes. But on the other, the U.S. government, foreign governments, and the chocolate companies warned that opening the doors to worldwide litigation could trigger a foreign policy crisis.
