It's the end of June, and you know what that means: Supreme Court decision season! This year, the Court has ruled on cases relating to such hot-button issues as Trump's immigration restrictions and public accommodations laws as well as lesser-known constitutional questions raised by modern society, like the legality of law enforcement searches of electronic data. Unfortunately, modern media outlets also all too often prioritize breadth over depth, describing the Court as "taking this stance" on a political issue rather than describing the specific legal question and the reasoning that went into their ruling. To some extent that's understandable, since Supreme Court decisions are written in legalese. But have no fear! I've done some digging, and here's a snapshot of how the Court has ruled this year...

2. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The Question: Ah, yes, the "gay wedding cake case." It all started back in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop to get a cake for their wedding. Its owner, Jack Phillips, was a devout Christian who, while he would sell anything "off the shelf" to anyone, declined to make custom cakes for occasions that offended his religious beliefs--including same-sex marriages. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that this denial of service violated a state law barring discrimination in business against (among other groups) gays and lesbians. When a state court affirmed the Commission's ruling, Jack Phillips appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that...

The Ruling: By a 7-to-2 majority, the Court reversed the decision of the Colorado authorities on the grounds of Phillips' religious freedom. Justice Anthony Kennedy--who wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide) as well as this case--was quick to point out that "the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights." On the other hand, "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression." So, while "Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public," that law "must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion" in accordance with court precedent.

Accordingly, Jack Phillips should have been entitled to fair consideration of his religious beliefs from the CCRC. While his case was being heard, "the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages" because "state law at the time...afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive." However, no such consideration was extended to Phillips. Instead, "some of the commissioners at the Commission's formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips' faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust" without objections from other commissioners.

The CCRC also claimed in the Masterpiece proceedings that messages on cakes were attributable to the customer (not the baker) and failed to take into account Phillips' willingness to sell other products to LGBT customers, both of which were inconsistent with their treatment of other bakers who objected to another message. This obvious double standard, as well as the disparaging comments, led the majority to conclude that CCRC's decision was based on hostility toward Phillips' beliefs and thus impermissible under the First Amendment. The case was resolved in his favor, but on such narrow grounds that the door was left open for future, similar cases to be decided differently, with respect paid to both gay couples and religious objectors.

Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Breyer, in which she agreed with the majority's judgment that the CCRC had not given Phillips "neutral and respectful consideration" on the basis of commissioners' hostile comments, but did not think the treatment of other bakers was relevant because they had not discriminated on the basis of a protected class under the Colorado law in question. Gorsuch filed another concurring opinion joined by Alito, in which he argued that the other bakers' cases were in fact legally similar and that CCRC acted hypocritically by punishing Jack Phillips because it found his beliefs offensive.

Gorsuch also joined Thomas' concurring opinion that the case really should have been decided on free speech grounds, since the use of artistic talents is exactly the type of expressive conduct that the First Amendment protects. (Court precedent has established that compelling speech is even more unconstitutional than forbidding speech). Ginsburg dissented in an opinion joined by Sotomayor, arguing that the commissioners' hostility did not justify a ruling in favor of Phillips.

Regardless of your feelings on this decision, it was for sure among the highest-impact decisions of this year and maybe even of this era. Of course it wasn't the only big decision of this year, but don't worry--there will be more reviews to come!