By Khamille Labbé, Editorials Editor
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate. In Biden v. Missouri, the Court reviewed if the Health and Human Services (HHS) could force health workers at facilities with both healthcare programs, Medicare, and Medicaid, to be COVID-19 vaccinated, along with a broader vaccine-or-mask mandate for employers with at least 100 employees. On Jan. 13, 2022, the Court concluded that the HHS has the authority to enforce vaccination – except for medical and religious reasons – through a per curiam decision (a decision made collectively by the Court).
Biden v. Missouri is just one of the cases the Court has had to rule on, but the nation’s highest Court has a full docket with important issues this term. Justices will rule on matters including abortion, possession of firearms outside the house, religious expression, and varying other topics.
Cases with Pending Results:
- Carson v. Makin
The Carson and Nelson families are opposing Pender Makin, Commissioner of Maine’s Department of Education, as Maine is prohibiting them from receiving state funding from the state’s tuition assistance program because they want to use the funding for a religious school. Petitioners argue that Maine is preventing their children from getting the best education and is violating their constitutional rights.
In 2020, the Court ruled that states do not have to provide public funding for private schools. However, if they did, states could not discriminate based on the institution’s religious status, as they explained in a similar case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The case ruled that states could not discriminate based on the institution’s religious status.
Nevertheless, present lower courts have found that the ruling did not address how the funds would be used, so Carson is taking the issue up to the Supreme Court.
Questions being considered: Can public funds be withheld from schools that offer religious instruction? If funds are withheld, is that a violation of the 1st or 14th Amendment?
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, aims to create a law in Mississippi that will ban most abortions after 15 weeks, moving it up from the previous ban of 23 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health Organization petitions that Dobbs’ move to ban abortions at any level is unconstitutional.
This is the most significant abortion case in the previous three decades, as the Supreme Court will essentially be able to reexamine – and perhaps overturn – its rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The argument was first presented on Dec. 1 and will be voted on later this year.
Texas’ abortion law, which prohibits abortion after the first six weeks of pregnancy, was already approved.
Questions being considered: Is Mississippi’s law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks’ unconstitutional? What will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned in every state?
- New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen
Robert Nash and Brendan Koch filed suit, arguing that their Second Amendment rights had been violated after being denied a license to carry a gun in public due to lack of proper cause.
The case deals with a New York law that limits someone’s ability to carry a concealed weapon without “proper cause.” The state defines “proper cause” as “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”
Respondents Richard McNally—who denied Nash’s and Koch’s request–and Kevin Bruen–the superintendent of the New York State Police–counter that the law is a valid exercise of New York’s regulatory power. This case will mark the most significant trial of the Second Amendment for the first time in 11 years.
Questions being considered: Is New York violating petitioners’ Second Amendment rights? Is the ‘proper cause’ law violating the constitution?
- West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
This case concerns whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the U.S. Constitution. West Virginia aims to uphold the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which removed the guidelines the Court previously approved of in 2015 Clean Power Plan, which were later repealed by the Trump administration.
Questions being considered: Does the EPA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions? If so, is there a limit to the industries they can regulate?
Upcoming Oral Arguments
- Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
The NAACP branch of North Carolina has filed a lawsuit against a voter-ID bill in the state, claiming that it violates the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. Philip E. Berger, member of the North Carolina State Senate, is defending the constitutionality of the voter-ID bill in both federal and state court. The bill in question, North Carolina Senate Bill 824, requires all citizens to present a photo ID to vote. The Court will be reviewing if Berger, as a state legislator, has the right to intervene in the case to defend a state voter–ID law.
Date of Argument: Mar. 21
- Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.
In Sept. 2018, Robyn Morgan sued Sundance, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming that the company failed to pay her for overtime work. The district court denied Sundance’s motion to dismiss. The company provided an answer to Morgan’s complaint, but did not assert its right to arbitrate her claims. Sundance tried to compel arbitration nearly eight months after Morgan’s case was filed, but the district court argued that Sundance had lost its right to arbitration.
However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned the district court decision. Now, the case concerns a circuit split (which occurs when two or more circuits in the U.S. court of appeals interpret federal laws differently) regarding arbitration clauses of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Date of Argument: Mar. 21
- ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.
In Aug. 2017, Luxshare entered a large-scale business deal with ZF Automotive US, and the deal closed about a year later. Then, Luxshare allegedly discovered that ZF fraudulently concealed certain material facts, inflating the purchase price. The parties’ purchase agreement demanded that all disputes be resolved by three German arbitrators, and Luxshare intended to file claims for losses incurred because of ZF’s alleged wrongdoing. However, they sought to obtain discovery from ZF and its senior officers first, and asked a federal district court to compel discovery under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a). The law authorizes federal district courts to compel litigants subject to their jurisdiction to testify or provide documents “for use in a foreign or international tribunal.”
Date of Argument: Mar. 23
- Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
The petitioner, Le Roy Torres, served in the U.S. Army and is a former state trooper from Texas. While deployed in Iraq, he was honorably discharged after sustaining lung damage. Torres later sought reemployment with the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). He was hired as a state trooper, despite requesting for a different position. DPS had declined Torres’ request and placed him as a state trooper temporarily, stating that if he declined the position, his employment would be terminated. Torres resigned.
He later sued DPS in state court for violating the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. DPS moved to dismiss the case and the trial court denied the motion, but the Texas Thirteenth District Court of Appeals overturned the decision and granted DPS’ motion. Now Torres is trying to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Date of Argument: Mar. 29
