The current U.S. Supreme Court term will start heading for the finish line in May, as the nine Justices are mostly likely done hearing arguments, and concentrating on case decisions.
On Monday, the Court is expected to announce at least one new decision, and the Court has three decision, or non-argument, days scheduled, for now, in May. Its June calendar is not yet set. The Justices also have four private conference days scheduled for May, including last Friday.
Here is a quick look at the major decisions pending between now and late June, when the Court is expected to end its 2014 term.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (heard November 3, 2014)
Zivotofsky v. Perry involves 12-year-old Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky. Menachem’s parents are American citizens, and Menachem was born in Jerusalem. The Zivotofskys asked the State Department for a passport for Menachem that listed “Jerusalem, Israel,” as his birthplace. The State Department refused to add the word “Israel” to Menachem’s passport, and the dispute has been in the legal system since then.
The direct constitutional issue is Zivotofsky is the question of which branch of government controls all, or at least most, of the foreign policy decisions in Washington.
Elonis v. United States (heard December 1, 2014)
Elonis vs. United States is a case originating near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Anthony Elonis is challenging a 44-month prison sentence for posts on Facebook that appeared to threaten his wife with violence, including statements made by Elonis online after he was served with a protection-from-abuse order.
Elonis believes that the lower court that convicted him should have been presented with direct evidence proving that Elonis made the statements with the intention of harming their recipients. Elonis claimed he made the statements as therapeutic works of art, in the form of rap lyrics, and he never intended to harm anyone.
The decision in the case could have a lot to say about the First Amendment in the age of Facebook
Reed v. Town Of Gilbert, Arizona (heard January 12, 2015)
This case is about local zoning laws that pertain to temporary signs that give directions to where people can attend church services. The Court accepted the case in July 2014 and it involves the zoning ordinance in Gilbert, which draws a distinction between “ideological signs” and “political signs” posted in publicly viewed locations. The Gilbert code restricts religious signs to 6 square feet, while political signs can be up to 32 square feet in size. There are also different time restrictions. A lower court decided the Gilbert code was “content neutral.” The Justice Department supports the church in this case.
Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project (heard January 21, 2015)
The case began in 2008, when the Inclusive Communities Project (or ICP) filed a lawsuit against the Texas state agency for the distribution of tax credits in a way that reinforces and increases racial segregation. Because landlords who receive the tax credits are required to accept affordable-housing vouchers from low-income tenants—many of whom come from minority communities—the allocation of those credits has an outsized impact on racial housing patterns. Courts at the district and circuit levels agreed with the ICP, concluding that Texas’ distribution of tax credits violated the Fair Housing Act because of its “disparate impact” on minorities.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (heard February 25, 2015)
Samantha Elauf applied to work for the famous clothing retailer but was rejected. The EEOC took up the case, contending that Elauf, a Muslim, was denied employment because she wears a headscarf. But the agency lost in the Tenth Circuit and is now asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (heard March 2, 2015)
Proposition 106, passed in 2000 by 56 percent of Arizona voters, established a statewide, bipartisan committee to oversee the redistricting process for state and congressional seats. Perhaps unsurprisingly, partisan bickering has roiled the committee’s decisions. The GOP-controlled state legislature is hoping the Supreme Court will return control to Phoenix. But a ruling in favor of the bipartisan committee could have far-reaching effects about redistricting – if the Court decides the Arizona legislature has standing to sue.
King v. Burwell (heard March 4, 2015)
The case of King v. Burwell is a significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The Justices will try to decide if language in the act blocks people from getting tax breaks on premiums sold by federally run health-care exchanges in 34 states.
The tax credits go to people who most likely can’t afford to buy insurance at full prices on the exchanges. So a ruling that holds the subsidies are unconstitutional could have a big effect on Obamacare’s future.
Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (heard March 23, 2015)
Walker III V. Texas Division, Sons Of Confederate Veterans, Inc., will settle a dispute about the boundaries between government speech and free speech. The Texas case came about in 2009, when the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans (or SCV) submitted an application to the state’s specialty license program for a plate design that featured the Confederate battle flag. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicle Board voted to decline the application, citing a policy that it “may refuse to create a new specialty license plate if the design might be offensive to any member of the public.”
Obergefell v. Hodges (heard April 28, 2015)
The Supreme Court heard extended arguments last week about the legality of same-sex marriages in four states. Its eventual decision could be a landmark civil rights moment, or a move that would confuse a lot of people on both sides of the issue. Same-sex marriage supporters believe the unions are permitted nationally under the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection provisions. But four states in this lawsuit – Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee – believe same-sex marriage eligibility should be determined by the states, through a political process that gives voters a role in the decision.
Glossip v. Gross (heard April 29, 2015)
Glossip v. Gross is a case was brought by several death-row inmates in Oklahoma, who claim that the use of midazolam, an anti-anxiety medication, as a sedative during lethal injection violates a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
