5 Upcoming Supreme Court Cases You Need To Know

What’s the story? 

• The Supreme Court has a new term commencing this week, including several significant cases regarding environmental standards, voting rights, free speech, and more.
• Here’s a look at the upcoming cases to be aware of this term. 

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency 

• On Monday, Oct. 3, the justices heard oral arguments on Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), representing a 14-year legal battle. This case challenges the EPA’s Clean Water Act, a landmark law from 1972 that protects America’s water sources by regulating the discharge of pollutants to lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. The case specifically questions how to interpret what land falls within the EPA’s jurisdiction. 
• In 2007, the EPA halted the Sackett couple’s home construction near Idaho’s Lake Priest because the land was a potentially protected wetland under the Clean Water Act. In 2012, the couple sued the EPA, challenging the federal government’s ability to dictate the developments on their property. 
• The Sacketts’ attorney Damien Schiff argued against the EPA’s interpretation of "waters of the U.S." as he claimed that his client's property should not be subject to federal protections since its waters do not directly enter into a larger body of water. Both liberal and conservative judges questioned his reasoning. 

Moore v. Harper

• Moore v. Harper will examine the states’ power in federal elections, questioning the legal theory of the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which says the Constitution allows state legislatures to regulate national elections without oversight from state courts. 
• The Supreme Court received the case after North Carolina’s state legislature passed extreme partisan gerrymandering, awarding ten seats to Republicans and four to Democrats. 
• Voters challenged the map in state court, claiming it violated the state Constitution’s free elections clause. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with voters and struck down the map, describing it as an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander…designed to enhance Republican performance.” 
• Two Republican legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate their gerrymandered map, which the justices rejected in March. In June, the court agreed to take the case. 
• Adopting the independent state legislator theory would mean voters hold no judicial remedy to fight partisan gerrymandering and allow state lawmakers to adopt voter suppression laws, degrading critical aspects of U.S. elections.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

• The case of National Park Producers Council v. Ross concerns the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12, a landmark law considered to be one of the most significant protections for farm animals worldwide. 
• Proposition 12, or the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative of 2018, prohibits the confinement of calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in areas below a specific number of square feet. This case questions whether the Proposition violates the Constitution’s “dormant commerce clause” by imposing an unreasonable burden on interstate trade. The pork industry argues that since California imports almost all pork from other states, Proposition 12 forces the sector to overhaul its practices to accommodate the single state.
• This case could allow the court to limit states’ ability to regulate commerce, including low-carbon fuel standards, bans on carcinogenic ingredients, lead, BPA, and more. 

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

• 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis highlights the constitutionality of a state law that provides an individual with the right to speak or stay silent and whether this violates free speech. The case concerns a business owner in Colorado who objected to working with a same-sex couple for religious reasons, disregarding the state’s laws protecting LGBTQIA+ people from discrimination. 
• At the center of the case is the same Colorado anti-discrimination law that came before the court in 2018 when a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The justices ruled in favor of the baker, deciding the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed bias against his religious views. This year’s case asks if businesses may use religious objections to refuse service after a website designer denied creating a site for a same-sex couple’s wedding. 
• The public awaits the court's decision, as this ruling will hint toward the justices’ commitment to protecting LGBTQIA+ rights. 

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard

• The Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard case challenges the ability of educational institutions to use race as a factor in admission decisions. This ruling could overrule Grutter v. Bollinger of 2003, which upheld the use of the affirmative action policy, allowing race-conscious admissions to promote student diversity. 
• The conservative nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is appealing a lower court decision to maintain affirmative action at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). The group argues that the admissions standards at Harvard discriminate against Asian American applicants, and UNC discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. SFFA claims that affirmative action violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits exclusion from participation in federally assisted programs based on race.
• The universities assert that race is just one factor in their admissions process, and affirmative action allows for a higher representation of students of color on campus. 

How do you feel about these Supreme Court cases? 

-Jamie Epstein

(Photo credit: iStock/Douglas Rissing)