The Supreme Court is set to rule on several important cases in its 2022-23 term, which begins Monday.
More than 20 appeals are currently on the legal register. Dozens more will be added in the coming months. Caseloads are usually settled by February, effectively ending his term in late June.
Other important appeals that could still be added to the court calendar cover issues such as gun rights, vaccine mandates in schools and businesses, and social media content restrictions.
Key Petitions Already on the Supreme Court Record:
Affirmative Action: Students vs. University of North Carolina for Fair Admissions When Students Seeking Fair Admissions Versus Harvard Presidents and Fellows
Joins Biden, Harris, Kentanji Brown-Jackson
Argument Monday, October 31st
Issue: Another question as to whether higher education institutions can continue to use race as one of several “plus” factors in admissions to achieve a diverse student population.
Case: The Asian American Student Coalition imposes higher college admissions standards on Latino and Black students at the expense of them, saying they are unfairly discriminated against.
Argument: Student Representation Organizations Tell High Court Upholding “Narrowly Tailored” and “Holistic” Race-Aware Affirmative Action Programs Unless Schools Based Such Admissions Decisions 2003 We seek to dismiss the precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger of 2004. Either it depends on the race alone, or it depends on the quota system. Opponents of affirmative action say universities violate Title VI by penalizing certain classes of applicants and denying viable race-neutral alternatives. The school strongly denies any discrimination, says race considerations are limited, and notes that the lower courts agreed with their discretionary grounds. The Biden administration has filed a legal team supporting Harvard’s admissions policy.
Impact: Judge Sandra Day O’Connor said in a majority decision in 2003 that race-sensitive admissions policies should be limited in time, hoping that in 25 years there would be no need. The current case could have significant ramifications nationwide in other areas, such as employment and government contracts. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will not hear Harvard’s case because his term on Harvard’s oversight board expired this spring.
Governor of Texas. ABBOT praises his LONE STAR operation and highlights the number of migrants he has sent across the country
Speech/LGBTQ+ rights at work: 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis (discussion pending)
The question: Whether applying the Public Lodging Act to force artists to speak or remain silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Example: Graphic artist Lorie Smith is seeking exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which allows her to design a custom wedding website that promotes messages that go against her personal beliefs. She said that she was “forced” to publish on her behalf and prevented her from posting to her.Her company’s website describes those beliefs, particularly her opposition to same-sex marriage, and the state says its laws are applied fairly. all This makes it illegal to deny public services based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
Discussion: A lower court upheld CADA, saying the state had compelling reasons to protect the “interests of dignity” of marginalized groups. It ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit, but sidestepped the core issue for narrow reasons. his The right to freedom of religion and speech. Both this and the website case are limited in scope and deal with businesses with elements of “artistic expression” that are not applicable to most employers.
Impact: Despite Smith’s demands, the High Court clearly No to address whether the law also violates the right of free exercise of faith that artists have in good faith. have become more receptive to upholding religious liberty in the controversy surrounding civil servants’ prayers within the United States. As such, it may reach a judge in the coming months.
Kamala Harris suggests ‘you don’t have to change your faith’ to agree with Democrats on abortion
Redistricting: moore vs harper (argument undecided)
At issue: Whether state courts have improperly exercised the power given to state legislators by the U.S. Constitution to administer federal elections and legislative re-elections.
Case: Includes a North Carolina Republican challenge to a state court ruling dismissing a congressional district drawn by the state legislature. This increases the chances of Republican candidates winning 10 of the state’s 14 congressional districts.
Rationale: The Supreme Court is now being called upon to invoke the “independent legislature doctrine” for the first time. Proponents of the ISL state that Article 1 of the Constitution specifically states that “the time, place and manner in which elections for senators and representatives shall be held shall be prescribed by the legislatures of each state.” By state courts or state constitutions. Civil rights groups have called it an effort to inject hypergerrymandering into the redistricting process, and the theory was used by some to challenge the election results in the 2020 presidential election. says. The problem for judges is to define the limits of the term “legislative body.”
Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, agreed in January. 6 Committee “Optional interview”
Impact: A judge on Oct. 4 is set to hear another debate over a Republican-friendly map of Congress in Alabama. Civil rights groups say the black population undermines the voting power of minority voters in her 27% state. What judges decide in disputes in both states could have far-reaching implications for the 2024 elections and beyond.
Immigration: USA vs Texas (Argument is undecided in November)
At issue: Oppose the 2021 DHS policy that halts most immigration deportations and prioritizes deportation only for those deemed to be a serious threat to public security or for cases of terrorism or espionage.
Case: Following lawsuits in Louisiana and Texas, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction freezing the “Guidelines for Enforcing Civil Immigration Laws” policy. The Biden administration then asked the High Court to intervene.
Discussion: Republican-led states say the situation along the Mexican border is in serious danger, suffering from financial, safety, education, and health problems related to new policies.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
However, the Justice Department has criticized a federal judge’s injunction, saying it amounted to a “national, judicially-imposed overhaul” of the executive branch’s enforcement priorities, arguing that federal authorities could use limited resources to illegally He pointed out that it is best suited to handle immigration detention.
Impact: Both red-leaning and blue-leaning states are challenging recent immigration policies involving both Republican and Democratic administrations. In previous Supreme Court terms, judges debated individual appeals regarding asylum seekers and public benefits available to newly arrived immigrants.
Courts have traditionally restricted states from challenging federal immigration policy or implementing their own policies. However, the conservative majority of the current Supreme Court appears to be more enthusiastic about considering the state’s challenge.