2016 will mark a significant moment for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This year will force presidential candidates in this election season to take note of what the judiciary plans to do. What the Court decides this year will determine the future of millions of Americans on a personal level.
The first case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association involves whether or not public employees can be required to join a union or pay a fee for collective bargaining services. The lawsuit contends these agreements violate First Amendment protections. Workers who object to joining a union already can get refunds for dues spent on political campaigns. The challengers, the Christian Educators Association International, and 10 California public school teachers, say that for public employees, collective bargaining also is political speech because it involves asking for budget or policy actions from a government agency.
If the suit prevails, public employee unions say they could be crippled in about half the states that allow such agency shop clauses. Those states overwhelmingly lean Democratic. If unions prevail, it may be thanks to Justice Scalia, who has raised concerns about free riders, employees who benefit from collective bargaining, but don’t contribute fully to its costs.
The second case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, challenges affirmative action. When first heard in 2012, the issue paralyzed the court, which took eight months to issue a 7–1 compromise approving diversity as a goal, but asking a lower court to conduct more fact-finding.
Because Justice Elena Kagan is recused, having participated in the case before joining the court, the most liberals can hope for is a 4–4 split, with Justice Kennedy joining them to let stand UT’s lower court victory.
But the burden is on UT to justify its use of race preferences, and if Justice Kennedy believes university administrators haven’t delivered, he may join other conservatives to tighten limits on affirmative action.
The third case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, looks at the extent to which states can regulate and restrict abortion. The court continues to hold that women have a constitutional right to terminate pregnancy and has struck down restrictions that it concludes impose a “substantial obstacle” to getting an abortion.
The case looks at a 2013 Texas law requiring abortion doctors to hold admitting privileges at a local hospital and clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. Abortion rights supporters say the rules would leave the state with 10 such facilities, clustered in major cities, down from the 44 it had in 2014. The American Medical Association and other professional organizations have filed briefs saying the restrictions serve no medical purpose.
Several states have similar laws; if Texas prevails, the anti-abortion movement is likely to push for such measures elsewhere.
The last case, Evenwel v. Abbott, raises questions about how legislative districts must be drawn. In the early 1960s, the Supreme Court set the principle of one person, one vote or that political districts be equal in population.
This year, the court was presented with a provocative claim: that nearly every state and local jurisdiction has violated the Constitution by using its total population as the base in dividing legislative seats. Plaintiffs say the people who count must be limited to eligible voters or another subset including only U.S. citizens.
The focus has been on illegal immigrants. But if the plaintiffs prevail, children, lawful permanent residents, prison inmates, and others will cease to factor into the division of political power. Such a ruling likely will benefit the GOP by shifting power from Democratic-leaning cities to rural, predominantly white communities.
For these reasons, 2016 is the year of the Supreme Court. Whether for good or bad is yet to be determined.
