Scott Underwood
By Scott Underwood
Every October, when a new nine-month U.S. Supreme Court term begins, important and interesting cases await the nine justices.
The term that began last week seems particularly pivotal for the direction of our country’s laws, given the high court’s controversial decision last term to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that had affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion.
The rejection of Roe v. Wade hinged on the power of the court’s new 6-3 conservative majority, signaling the willingness, if not eagerness, to reverse past rulings that favored a progressive agenda.
Here’s a brief look at a few of the most consequential and intriguing cases slated for SCOTUS consideration:
STATE REDISTRICTING LAWS
The high court will consider at least two related cases.
In Merrill v. Milligan, Alabama voters and the state chapter of the NAACP are challenging the drawing of the state’s seven new U.S. House districts. Only one of those has a Black-majority population while Black residents comprise 27% of Alabama’s overall population.
The state argues that “race-neutral” criteria was used to draw the map and that a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would require “racial targets” and “race-based sorting” in drawing new districts.
In the second case, Moore v. Harper, SCOTUS will weigh a challenge by Republican legislators in North Carolina to a state supreme court ruling that a new congressional map was gerrymandered in violation of the state constitution. A trial court appointed a panel of three experts to redraw the map.
The GOP legislators contend that only a state legislature has the power to create district maps. If SCOTUS agrees, it would stifle the ability of state courts to consider the legality of new legislative and congressional maps, almost certainly leading to even bolder gerrymandering.
The high court, perhaps, is more likely to rule that a court-appointed panel cannot redraw districts.
The high court’s rulings in these cases, of course, could have consequences in Indiana, where both major parties have been guilty of gerrymandering to consolidate political power.
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
In June, at the end of its last term, SCOTUS handed down a decision constricting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions via the Clean Air Act.
Justices heard arguments on the first day of the new term in a case that could limit the scope of the Clean Water Act of 1972. An Idaho couple has asked the court to strike down wetland protections so that they can build a home without securing an EPA permit.
The high court’s decision in this case could help settle ongoing political debates and litigation concerning preservation of areas that drain into protected waterways. Business interests generally favor a narrow definition of these protections, while environmentalists, of course, want a broad interpretation.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS VS. CIVIL RIGHTS
Remember the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the clamor it caused in Indiana – and nationally – in 2015? Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed the legislation, which essentially enabled business proprietors to refuse service to gay people based on religious beliefs.
SCOTUS dodged ruling on the legality of a similar 2018 case in Colorado, where a Colorado baker claimed that being legally required to create cakes for same-sex couples violated his right to freedom of speech.
This time around, the high court will consider a case where a graphic designer has expressed religious objections to creating wedding websites for same-sex couples.
—- Decisions on these cases and dozens of other before the U.S. Supreme Court are likely to have far-reaching implications for public policy impacting the environment, business, civil rights, elections and many other significant aspects of American life.
For Hoosiers and Americans everywhere, it will be another SCOTUS term to remember.
