The Supreme Court’s first full term in the Trump era begins Monday, and the nine justices are preparing to tackle a slew of blockbuster cases.
Following President Trump’s appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the justices appear eager to resolve controversies they have punted or avoided in the recent past. Here are nine cases we are watching in the upcoming term:
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The Masterpiece case is shaping up to be the highest profile controversy of the term, pitting religious liberty advocates against gay rights supporters in a row over the issue of free expression.
The Supreme Court’s resolution of the Masterpiece case will determine the constitutionality of Colorado’s public accommodations law forcing cake-baker Jack Phillips to create speech that defies his religious beliefs.
How the new nine-justice court chooses to adjudicate the dispute could reveal how it will tackle cases involving tension between religious liberty, free speech, and gay rights for decades to come. The Masterpiece decision looks likely to also impact a deluge of wedding vendor controversies heading the high court’s way in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court is jumping into the debate about the limits of governmental surveillance amid new technological advances without giving much in the way of hints about its thinking.
In Carpenter, the Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of law enforcement seizing and searching a cellphone user’s records to reveal that person’s locations and movements.
Because none of the nine justices sat on the high court when the governing precedence was created, the justices’ thoughts on this case remains a mystery. However, the way the justices resolve the case could set the boundaries of federal government surveillance for years to come.
Gill v. Whitford
The first blockbuster case of the Supreme Court’s new term comes in the opening week arguments over the constitutionality of political gerrymandering claims.
Gill v. Whitford presents the Supreme Court with questions about whether the justices should hear political gerrymandering disputes and whether the justices should create a new standard about how to decide such cases.
The outcome of this case could not only affect Wisconsin’s redistricting maps at issue, but others around the country as the midterm and 2020 elections approach.
Christie v. NCAA
The fate of sports gambling in the United States could forever change as the result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a case featuring New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie battling all of America’s top sporting leagues.
At issue in Christie v. NCAA is the Garden State’s decision to repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling that irritated the sports leagues and violated a federal law prohibiting various forms of sports gambling.
The odds are good that the justices’ attitudes about gambling will have less of an impact on their decision-making than their thinking about how to apply the Tenth Amendment in the case.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
The Supreme Court’s review in Husted of the lawfulness of Ohio’s voter registration list-maintenance process has the potential to impact the outcome of future elections nationwide.
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton blamed Chief Justice Roberts for contributing to her 2016 election loss to President Trump by “gutting” the Voting Rights Act in 2013.
While Americans of all political persuasions continue arguments about the outcome of the 2016 elections, the Husted case could affect upcoming elections by providing new guidance about how states’ determine voter registration.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
The political power of public-sector unions could dramatically shift as the result of the high court’s Janus decision.
The Supreme Court looked poised in 2016 to overturn a previous ruling that said public-sector employees who do not belong to a union can still be forced to pay a fee that covers the union’s costs in negotiating the contract that applies to all employees. But Justice Antonin Scalia’s death left the court with an even 4-4 split from the eight remaining justices in that Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case.
Since Gorsuch replaced Scalia, the nine justices’ decision last week to take this case suggests they might overturn the previous ruling and upset the unions again.
Jennings v. Rodriguez and Sessions v. Dimaya
Whether or not arguments over President Trump’s travel ban make it to the Supreme Court this term, the justices will have an opportunity to shape the boundaries of future immigration policies crafted by Trump.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments for a second time in Sessions v. Dimaya and Jennings v. Rodriguez in its opening week of the new term. Sessions v. Dimaya poses questions regarding whether the Immigration and Nationality Act’s “crime of violence” provision is unconstitutionally vague, and Jennings v. Rodriguez involves whether illegal immigrants — including those with criminal records — are entitled to bond hearings.
The high court held previous arguments in both cases before Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court, meaning the justices could be deadlocked and relying upon his vote to resolve both disputes.
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Americans’ avenues of recourse against foreign sponsors of terrorism are at stake in Rubin.
Eight U.S. victims of a 1997 terrorist attack in Jerusalem filed a lawsuit against Iran for the country’s role in providing material support to the terrorists. A federal judge delivered a $71.5 million verdict against Iran, which Iran never paid. The victims who filed suit then proceeded to bring cases on Iranian assets nationwide to satisfy the district court’s judgment.
Rubin involves ancient artifacts held by the University of Chicago and Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History and looks at whether a foreign nation’s property in the U.S. is immune from attachment and execution.
Patchak v. Zinke
The Supreme Court’s coming term brings crucial questions regarding how the courts will oversee the separation of powers in the Trump era.
Patchak questions the constitutionality of whether a federal statute depriving an American the right to pursue a pending lawsuit violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The federal government turned land in western Michigan over to the Gun Lake Tribe, which subsequently opened a casino. David Patchak lives near the casino and has claimed the casino’s construction and operation caused him injury.
Patchak brought a lawsuit against the U.S. government which previously arrived at the Supreme Court over the issue of whether Patchak had standing to sue. After the high court decided Patchak had standing, Former President Barack Obama signed a law that said any legal action pertaining to the property at issue in Patchak’s case “shall not be filed or maintained in a federal court and shall be promptly dismissed.”
The Supreme Court will now look to decide whether the government can direct the courts to dismiss pending lawsuits by enacting new statutes in this manner or if such action is unconstitutional.
