Supreme Court justices departed for a brief, two-week recess on March 5 and will return to the bench on March 19 for oral arguments. From March through April, the Supreme Court will consider a number of high-profile cases in addition to Benisek v. Lamone, a case challenging the redrawing of Maryland’s 6th Congressional District.
Free speech and abortion
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra on March 20, which examines whether disclosures required under California’s Reproductive FACT Act violate First Amendment free speech protections.
The Reproductive FACT Act, passed in 2015, requires licensed medical facilities to disclose to patients that “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.”
Facilities are required to disclose the information to patients via a “conspicuous” and “easily read” public notice in their waiting rooms, or distribute a printed or digital notice to patients.
Unlicensed medical facilities, meanwhile, are required under the Reproductive FACT Act to display a notice at their entrance in up to 13 different languages stating the “facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”
This disclaimer must also be given to patients on site and be included on print and digital advertising materials.
NIFLA, a group with more than 130 pro-life crisis pregnancy centers throughout California, challenged the law, arguing it violated their free speech rights. The Reproductive FACT Act, they say, forces the centers to “speak a message not only detrimental to their cause, but in direct conflict with their core convictions.”
Taxes for out-of-state retailers
On April 17, the Supreme Court will wade into the debate over a law that bars states from collecting taxes from retailers that don’t have a physical presence in the state.
The case stems from a law passed by the South Dakota legislature that requires retailers who sell “tangible personal property” in the state, but who don’t have a physical presence there, to pay sales taxes.
The state law was passed despite a 1992 ruling from the Supreme Court, which prohibits states from collecting taxes from a seller with no physical presence in the state for products sold in the state.
Now, South Dakota and other states want the high court to review the ruling.
This month, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to side with South Dakota in the case and give states the authority to collect sales taxes from retailers outside of the state.
The 2002 decision from the Supreme Court is “badly reasoned and has proved unworkable in the age of modern e-commerce,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in an amicus brief filed with the high court.
Racial redistricting
In addition to hearing two partisan gerrymandering cases, the justices will also hear a redistricting case that involves challenges to Texas’ congressional and state legislative districts, which were deemed “racially discriminatory.”
The state’s redistricting plans have been before the courts since 2011, and a three-judge panel put forth an interim redistricting plan used during the 2012 elections.
The state legislature then adopted the district court’s interim maps in 2013.
In August, lower courts invalidated two Texas congressional districts — one was deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and the other violated the Voting Rights Act — and state legislative districts in four counties.
The courts gave the state until mid-August of last year to decide whether to hold a special session of the state legislature to redraw the voting maps, and the district lines were to be redrawn ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.
But in September, the high court put the lower court rulings on hold while the justices decided whether to take up the case.
At the time, the court’s four left-leaning justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — said they would have allowed for the districts to be redrawn.
The court will hear two cases, both Abbott v. Perez, that were consolidated for one hour-long oral argument on April 24.
Trump’s travel ban
President Trump’s third iteration of the travel ban will be before the justices on April 25.
The president’s executive order, rolled out last year, restricts travel to the U.S. for foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela.
Earlier versions of Trump’s executive order were challenged in and subsequently struck down by the lower courts, and the most recent version has also suffered a string of defeats.
Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked the ban from taking effect in October.
Then, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the executive order in December, and in February, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals ruled against the Trump administration.
But the rulings didn’t have any immediate impact, as the justices allowed the travel ban to take effect while it considers the Hawaii case.
