Season preview

This new term already promises to be exciting at the Supreme Court, which hears its first case Oct. 5. Usually the court waits to grant big cases until later in the term, but this year it has granted a number of major cases early on. The court could decide the future of public sector unions, standards for the death penalty, and rules around redistricting.

A pile of big petitions still awaits the justices’ review, and at the end of September the justices will consider more cases to take for this term. The court seems poised to take its first major abortion case since it upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2006. The dividing lines are already sketched out: This summer the high court, overruling the four conservative justices, placed an emergency stay on Texas’ laws regulating abortion centers.

The court also seems likely to take a case from nonprofits seeking relief from the contraceptive and abortifacient mandate. So far at least a half-dozen religious nonprofits have appealed to the Supreme Court. While nonprofits have won at the district court level, they’ve had a string of losses at the circuit court level. If the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene, most nonprofits will either have to comply with the mandate or pay fines for noncompliance.

Finally, while Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is in headlines, a case addressing the brewing conflicts between gay marriage and religious liberty is nowhere near the high court. Look for that type of case in coming years.

Union speech: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Public sector unions, the only unions staying afloat these days, may lose considerable power if they lose this case. Unions often lobby for political causes, and usually on the side of the Democratic Party. Right now, at unionized workplaces, nonunion members can opt out of paying for the union’s political activities. They pay a reduced fee that covers basic union activities like bargaining. But 10 California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International are challenging that, saying that all public sector union payments count as political speech. They want to be able to opt out of that speech entirely, or at least have to opt in to payments as nonmembers.

Affirmative action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The high court revisits a case it decided in 2013 about the admissions policy of the University of Texas (UT) at Austin. Abigail Fisher, the plaintiff, argues the school unfairly used race in its admission process, denying her a spot because she was white. In 2013, the Supreme Court sent her case back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, telling the court to apply stricter scrutiny to UT Austin’s admissions policy. The 5th Circuit again upheld the policy, saying race was only used in a “holistic” evaluation of applicants. Apparently at least four Supreme Court justices, the number needed to grant a case, were not pleased with the 5th Circuit’s ruling.

Redistricting: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Evenwel v. Abbott

What does “one person, one vote” actually mean? Should states draw districts based on total population, or the number of voters? Is it acceptable to draw unevenly populated, partisan-leaning districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act? The Supreme Court will decide these questions in two cases on redistricting. The result could reshape legislative and congressional power.

Criminal justice: Hurst v. Florida, Kansas v. Carr, Montgomery v. Louisiana

The court has taken up five cases related to life sentences and the death penalty already this term, three of them consolidated into one argument day. The three cases from Kansas concern the proper instructions for a jury considering the death penalty, and whether co-defendants in a capital case should be separated for their sentencing. Montgomery v. Louisiana revisits the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision forbidding sentences of life without parole for juveniles and asks whether that would retroactively apply to incarcerated juveniles.

Possible case: the contraceptive mandate

The court is likely to take up one of the nonprofits’ challenges to the federal contraceptive and abortifacient mandate. A prime candidate is an appeal from the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who minister to the low-income elderly. On their petition for hearing to the high court, the Little Sisters have the name of one of the most prominent Supreme Court litigators today: Paul Clement.

Possible case: state abortion regulations

In the last few years, many states have passed tighter regulations on abortion centers, including requiring centers to meet surgical standards or abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld such regulations in Texas, but struck down a similar law in Mississippi (different panels of judges decided the cases). Mississippi has appealed the 5th Circuit ruling to the high court, while Texas, which won, is asking the court not to take its case. Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life, thinks the court probably won’t take the Mississippi case by itself, but might combine the Texas and Mississippi cases. “I find it ironic that Roe v. Wade originated in Texas and now another critical case and opportunity for the court on the issue of abortion is also coming out of Texas,” said Burke.

Listen to WORLD Radio’s Mary Reichard discuss the upcoming Supreme Court term on The World and Everything in It.