There are 6 rather largish cases before the court this term that are set to be decided before the end of June. List of all cases this term is here.The six big ones:
[ol]
[li]Trump v. Hawaii - Issue(s): (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.[/li][li]Gil v Whitford - 5 questions, of which, whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable is probably the most impactful[/li][li]Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Issue(s): Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.[/li][li]Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council - Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.[/li][li]New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association - Issue(s): Whether a federal statute that prohibits adjustment or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.[/li][li]South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. - Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota’s sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.[/li][/ol] My predictions: Trump v. Hawaii is 6-3 upholding the ban with Kagan siding with the 5 conservatives. Gil punts somehow saying that partisan gerrymandering is not justiceable, 5-4 conservative wing prevailing. Masterpiece the court will establish a balancing test of some kind where free speech is weighed against equal protection and find that the baker doesn’t meet the burden to show their speech is being compelled and rule against the baker. 6-3 with Roberts and Kennedy voting with the liberal wing. Janus is 5-4 with conservative wing prevailing with Abood being overruled and agency shop fees in public sector employment will be prohibited New Jersey - I have no prediction Wayfair will be 7-2 with Sotomayor and Kagan voting with the conservative wing saying preserving the status quo physical presence requirement
I’m sure some of these will be debated when the opinions are released, but for now, I want to memorialize my predictions so I can document how wrong I’m going to be. What are your predictions? Polling is also here, with multi select so you can pick who you think will be the winners in each.
Trump v. Hawaii - I think it will be mostly upheld, 5-4 partisan split.
Gil v Whitford - I agree that justiciability will be the big question. I’m really unsure how they will come out on this one. They will mostly agree that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional (though Thomas will say something weird about it being okay) but I don’t know whether they will agree on a potential test/remedy. I’m leaning towards 5-4 partisan split with conservatives saying non-justiciable.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - I suspect that Masterpiece will win. 5-4 partisan split. Could be a surprise if Roberts sides with the liberals. This is a case where Gorsuch makes all the difference.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council - Unions will definitely lose 5-4, partisan split.
New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association - I think state’s rights will win here. This could be a 6-3 decision led by the conservatives. Look for sports betting to come to your neighborhood soon.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. - I really don’t know but I’m guessing a 5-4 decision one way or the other. Congress should just fix this problem by allowing states to collect sales taxes on goods purchased through interstate commerce but of course, Republicans won’t make it harder to cheat on taxes.
I voted the way I would least like SCOTUS to decide, and it looks like everybody is tending that way too.
Janus and Gil are the ones that concern me the most. We have a sliver of hope on the latter. But Alito has been out to gut public unions for decades, and now he has his shot.
Trump will win versus Hawaii. I didn’t think the original Muslim ban passed constitutional muster, but I think the current ban is sufficiently watered down to remain in place.
SCOTUS has pretty much always held that gerrymandering isn’t its business, and I see no reason why they’ll change that now.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission wins in Masterpiece; the case has too many bad facts for Masterpiece to prevail. That’s especially true considering that a similarly constituted court declined to disturb the holding in Elane Photography, which had much better facts for the “it’s my right to discriminate!” side.
I don’t see any compelling reason to overturn Abood, and I don’t think SCOTUS will either, so AFSCME wins.
NJ v. NCAA: if the federal government wants to ban sports betting, it should ban sports betting. The underlying statute is just too messy for SCOTUS to rule for the NCAA.
Quill v. ND didn’t make sense when it was decided and it’s only a 26-year-old decision. I would find it hard to argue that state use taxes violate the Commerce Clause with a straight face, and I suspect the current court will find it hard to do so also.
Trump v. Hawaii - I picked Hawai’i, based on lower court decisions. I had forgotten that the “ban” had been watered down significantly.
Gil v Whitford - I think they will come down against jerry wandering.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Masterpiece wins.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council - Unions will lose.
New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association - States rights are not going to win.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. - South Dakota
I didn’t make a prediction in the NJ v NCAA case so can’t update my scorecard just yet. In looking at the votes, I don’t know how to count them. Since there were concurrences in part and dissents in part:
Does that count as 6-3, or 7-2? I think Breyer probably counts as a dissent but I’m not sure.
Even though I predicted a 6-3 split, I’d consider the opinion to have a 7-2 split. Breyer joined the majority opinion almost everywhere. He only disagreed on the “additional question” concerning severability and whether any part of the statute should survive the holding. He substantially agreed that states should be able to legalize sports betting in casinos.
This. The severability issue didn’t affect the outcome of the question presented, only whether the part of the statute that wasn’t challenged had to go too.
In my capacity as chief prognosticator, I give it to you on the nose. Good job with this prediction! RNATB also got it, but not with the vote count. Sunny - sorry you didn’t get this one
That’s the way it usually works. When the Supreme Court struck down the Telecommunications Decency Act in Attorney General Reno v. ACLU, while all nine justices agreed to most of the decision, two said that the portion concerning an adult communicating with minors should remain in place; the decision was reported widely as 7-2.
Given all the judges have written opinions for the cases heard in October, except Roberts, and that Gil is the only open case from the October sitting, my guess is that Roberts writes the Gil opinion.
I don’t think that will do any harm vis-a-vis my prediction. Neither wing of the court particularly likes gerrymandering cases but if either side was going to get involved I would assume it would be the liberal wing.
Trump–7-2 with Kagan and Breyer siding with the majority upholding the ban.
Gil–5-4; still non-justiciable. Kennedy saying maybe in the future; Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito saying never ever!
Masterpiece–5-4 upholding Colorado. Kennedy writes opinion saying reasonable police regulation no different than the Civil Rights Act; legislature may pass.
Janus–5-4 overruling Abood. Gorsuch just in time.
New Jersey–already decided; would be cheating by predicting.
Wayfair–8-1 (Ginsburg) upholding Quill on stare decisis. Up to Congress to change it.
Today the Supremes extended 4th Amendment protections to carports and drive-ways, requiring police to get a warrant before they can search a car parked on private property. 8-1, with Alito dissenting.
Phrased a bit more precisely, the Supreme Court ruled that the automotive exception to the warrant requirement does not apply within the “curtilage” (i.e., generally speaking, your yard and grounds) of a home.
There were two rules colliding here. Generally, one needs a warrant to search within the curtilage of someone’s home. Also, one generally does not need a warrant to search a motor vehicle (because of the risk of it being driven away). But what happens when the motor vehicle is parked within the curtilage? The Supreme Court ruled that the first rule prevails.
SCOTUS rules 7-2 for the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop in a narrow ruling based on the particular facts. Ruling, at first glance, seems to leave open the constitutional question at the hear of the dispute.
Roughly, the high court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission approached the case in a biased manner, essentially with a hostility to religion.
