What you need to know about upcoming Supreme Court decisions
S.C.O.T.U.S., returning from their postponement of cases, is officially in decision season — albeit over the phone.
They’ve had to adapt their methods of hearing cases, now conducting arguments over the phone, but business continues (almost) as usual for the Supreme Court. Here’s the latest on their highest-profile cases.
N.Y.C. gun rights
The first wasn’t a decision at all: The Court dropped a gun rights case that many Second Amendment advocates were counting on. Justices originally heard the case in December of last year, which concerned a law that specified where New Yorkers could transport an unloaded and locked gun. The case was dropped last week when it was discovered that the law in question had been changed.
The law, which prevented licensed gun owners from removing handguns from the registered address except to authorized shooting ranges, was considered by many to be too restrictive. The law has changed since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and now allows licensed owners to travel with an unloaded and locked handgun to other places, including shooting ranges outside New York City or to second homes.
But Second Amendment advocates aren’t happy about the sidestep. A Supreme Court ruling could have prevented similar laws from being enacted across the country.
Obamacare risk corridors
Health insurers across the country are seeking justice for money lost during implementation of Obamacare years ago after the government reneged their commitment to pay insurers back for start-up losses. The law in question, part of the Affordable Care Act that regulated profits and losses, required companies that made excess profits to pay the government back — and promised reimbursement to companies that lost money.
That reinforcement is referred to as a “risk corridor,” which is a method of encouraging insurance companies to enter new markets. That’s often a good way for insurers to lose money, but the government payback mitigates that risk.
But in 2014, a Republican-majority Congress renegotiated that payback. They did that again for the following two years. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is credited with having “killed Obamacare” as a result of leading that renegotiation. Then, after President Donald Trump’s election and administrative support for that refusal, insurance companies sued.
Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government owes $12 billion in payments to those insurers as previously stipulated.
Bridgegate
The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a case surrounding a political scandal called the Fort Lee closure scandal, or Bridgegate, in which political appointees of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie closed lanes at the toll plaza of the George Washington Bridge during morning rush hour. This created major traffic jams under the guise of a “traffic study,” but it’s believed that the lane closures were a result of collusion for political reasons.
Bridgegate is speculated to have been a political attack on a New Jersey mayor, Mark Sokolich, who did not endorse Christie when he was up for reelection in 2013. Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, and staff members Bill Baroni and David Wildstein were found guilty on charges of fraud and conspiracy after a federal investigation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that the scheme did not qualify as federal fraud.
Trump tax cases
Last December, as the House was voting for articles of impeachment against Trump, the Supreme Court decided to get involved in the issue of Trump’s tax records remaining secret. The three cases they’re scheduled to vote on soon will decide whether a sitting president can be convicted for criminal charges and whether Trump is required to hand over his financial documents.
The goal of the investigation on Trump is to assess his actions before the presidency. One case involves the hush-money paid to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal in an attempt to cover up potential affairs, wherein Trump declined to provide access to his personal financial records. His attorneys claim that as president, Trump is immune to such investigation.
Another case involves subpoenas by the House intelligence and financial services committees which seek to investigate foreign money laundering in the entire Trump family.
Many of Trump’s previous allies, including congressional Republicans, are quiet now that the case is reaching the Supreme Court. But four of the nine justices believe Trump has a point in that while in office, presidents should be shielded from state investigation. The Court’s decision will determine whether those investigations are fair game.
This case continues to be pushed back. Many are concerned that it could be one of the cases postponed to next season as a result of the delay in Supreme Court decisions amid the pandemic, though a decision is expected by the end of June.
Abortion laws
Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about abortion procedure law from Louisiana. The law, which hasn’t been finalized yet, requires any doctor performing an abortion in the state of Louisiana to have admitting privileges at a hospital at most 30 miles away from the facility. Admitting privileges indicate that the doctor has the right to admit a person as a patient in the hospital they work at.
The law is meant to increase competency within health care, say defendants of the law, but ultimately it prevents willing doctors from traveling to one of the three abortion clinics in Louisiana. That means that abortions will be significantly harder to access. Advocates for abortion and women’s health rights say that this law would leave just one doctor to care for every person in the state who is seeking an abortion.
The case doesn’t directly contradict Roe v. Wade, but many activists are concerned that ruling in favor of the restriction could set a precedent for similar cases to come that could further impact abortion rights.
The decision is expected by June.
D.A.C.A.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The purpose of the program is to protect immigrant youth who came to the United States with their parents or guardians and who consider the U.S. to be their only home. D.A.C.A. delays the deportation of those eligible youth and allows them to apply for a work permit in the U.S. This policy, which was introduced by former President Barack Obama in 2012, has a two-year renewal timeline.
But Trump is opposing that renewal. The Supreme Court is expected to release a decision about the constitutionality of that opposition this spring. Judge Neil Gorsuch is likely to oppose constitutionality, with a reputation for voting specifically on the text within legislation.
People are worried about the repercussions if D.A.C.A. is rescinded. Over 700,000 young immigrants — Dreamers— are at risk of losing their right to live and work safely in the U.S. While discontinuation of D.A.C.A. doesn’t mean that they’ll be deported immediately, it does mean that they’re at higher risk. And whereas they were eligible for legal work under D.A.C.A., most will have to work under the table without the protection of employment authorization documents. In some states, the absence of D.A.C.A. means no access to a driver’s license.
Many Dreamers are on the edge of their seat waiting for a decision. But others aren’t waiting: Some are already considering moving out of the U.S. to places like Mexico, Canada and Europe.
LGBTQIA employment protections
For the LGBTQIA+ community, the level of tolerated discrimination is up to individual states and may differ based on public or private employment, among other factors. This spring, the Supreme Court is set to decide on whether people identifying as LGBTQIA+ are protected under the Civil Rights Act from discrimination in the workplace.
Since the case appears to fall along partisan vote patterns — with typically conservatives justices voting against protections and typically liberal judges voting for — Justice Neil Gorsuch seems to have the deciding vote. His perspective is that such a change should come from Congress, not the court system, saying that Title VII protections are just vague enough to warrant larger action.
Title VII bars discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. Justices must determine how to interpret discrimination based on sex and decide whether that protects people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Any decision on this case would have rippling effects for members of the LGBTQIA+ community, impacting ongoing discussions about laws surrounding protections for transgender people to play sports as the gender they identify as or their rights to use the bathroom of their choice.
The decision is expected to come this spring.
Questions? Ask us at contact@govsight.co.
Like what you read but prefer to learn with your ears? Listen to The Insight Podcast by GovSight on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Podbean every Monday.
Follow GovSight on Twitter @GovSight1, Instagram @govsight and Facebook @GovSight. Go to govsight.com to see how GovSight is making “Citizenship. Simplified.”
