The Supreme Court is currently on a summer hiatus, but the nine Justices will be back in business on the first Monday in October. As of last Friday, the Court has accepted 35 merit cases, including consolidated cases. (You can get a detailed list of the cases at SCOTUSblog.)
Of those cases, 12 have been scheduled for hearings in October. But the three biggest cases being followed by Court watchers have yet to be given a day for arguments.
The case of Evenwel v. Abbott is about the concept of "one person, one vote," and voter redistricting in Texas.
A redistricting plan that the Texas legislature wrote in 2013 created new districts on a theory of equal representation by actual population, not the estimated voting-age population. The difference between the largest and the smallest populations in the districts was 8.04 percent. Using voting age population as the decider, the difference between the largest and the smallest was as much as 49 percent.
The Court will be asked to decide which measure, total population or voting-age population, should be used.
The second significant case is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and it could have a big impact of government workers’ unions.
In Freidrichs, the Court will consider the constitutionality of so-called “fair-share” payments, which were previously upheld in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. This system is a compromise between free-speech and labor advocates, in which a union’s non-consenting members are required to pay for only the most basic tasks of representation, such as negotiating contracts. Under Abood, employees do not have to subsidize the political activities of the union, as that would amount to forced speech.
California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, supported by the Center for Individual Rights, argues that she should have no obligation to pay any union dues whatsoever, since any payment is still a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech.
The third major case has a familiar name in the title: Fisher v. University of Texas. After remanding Fisher in 2013 for review under strict scrutiny, the Court will consider again whether the university’s use of racial preferences in selecting new students is indeed constitutional, after the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court upheld the university’s plans.
Former University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher contends that the school’s discriminatory admission policies led to her rejection, even though her qualifications surpassed those of many admitted minority students. The university maintains a program by which the top 10 percent of students in each public graduating class are granted automatic admission; Fisher argues that this is enough to ensure diversity. (She narrowly missed the cut at Stephen F. Austin High School, finishing 82nd out of 674.)
For hardcore Court watchers, there are also a slew of interesting cases that inspire fewer headlines but are nevertheless fascinating to follow. These include Foster v. Chatman, about racial discrimination in jury selection; Hurst v. Florida, about the role of juries in death penalty cases; Montgomery v. Louisiana, about whether juveniles already sentenced to life in prison should now be released; Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, about the standing to bring a lawsuit; and Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, about how "one person, one vote" applies to the redistricting process.
To be sure, the Court will still review and grant hearings in more cases. In its last term, the Justices handed down 74 opinions and they can accept new cases for the term through the winter.
