en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en
WASHINGTON — A reinvigorated Supreme Court will burst back on to the national stage next week facing a battery of contentious issues and a president determined to bend the judicial branch to his will.
After a sleepy term in which a shorthanded court mostly avoided controversy, its new conservative majority will tackle major cases on voting rights, gay rights, workers' rights and privacy rights — and, possibly, President Trump's revised immigration travel ban. The court's decisions could alter the powers of the president, state legislatures, corporations and police.
"There's only one prediction that's entirely safe of the upcoming term, and that is it will be momentous," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last week.
The imposing docket arrives at a time when the court has recovered from the untimely death early last year of Justice Antonin Scalia, a 14-month political standoff between the White House and Congress, and ultimately the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who showed signs of filling Scalia's shoes both ideologically and rhetorically.
That has solidified the court's right flank, giving conservatives hope of controlling the term's major cases after two years in which liberals more than held their own. "There could be some really significant wins," says Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group.
The question now, former U.S. solicitor general Gregory Garre says, is "how much can the Supreme Court handle?"
It has handled a lot in the past five years: rescuing Obamacare not once but twice, recognizing and legalizing same-sex marriage, weakening voting rights and campaign finance laws, protecting affirmative action and abortion rights, and strengthening religious liberty and privacy rights.
The coming term that begins Oct. 2 looms as another potential blockbuster, but with a degree of unpredictability that did not complicate earlier ones. For one thing, there's a new president at war with the judiciary.
Because Trump has replaced his political opposite, Barack Obama, in the White House, the justices will tangle with government lawyers who have switched sides on a range of issues, from enforcing arbitration clauses in employment contracts to purging voters from state registration rolls.
More:President Trump is trying to reverse Obama's legacy through legal battles
More:'SEE YOU IN COURT:' Trump's vow proves prophetic
More:For Supreme Court, the term that just ended was the calm before the storm
Several justices may need to swallow their pride as they confront Trump's Justice Department at the lectern. In addition to attacking courts and judges in general for holding up his immigration travel ban and sanctions against sanctuary cities, Trump has called Chief Justice John Roberts a "disaster" for green-lighting Obamacare and urged Ginsburg, 84, to resign because "her mind is shot."
The potential showdown over Trump's travel ban — pulled from the October calendar while the two sides debate changes that could render the case moot — is but one of many fights on immigration policy. Potential legal battles loom over his proposed border wall, penalties against sanctuary cities and ending legal protections for immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.
For that reason, conservatives say, it's crucial that the court uphold the travel ban, even in the face of Trump's campaign statements targeting Muslims and politically incorrect tweets from the White House.
“The Supreme Court needs to signal to the lower courts how to handle Donald Trump," says Josh Blackman, a conservative blogger and associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law. If the travel ban is struck down, he says, “then it’s open season. This presidency is over."
Trump isn't the only new sheriff in town. The addition of every new justice, it is said, creates a whole new court, and Gorsuch arrived in April with gusto. He dissented in the first case he heard as well as three more, and he wrote or joined five other separate opinions.
Gorsuch's biggest potential impact may be on Kennedy, who he served as a law clerk a quarter century ago. Will he pull the the swing justice into the conservative camp more often or push him away, as Justice Clarence Thomas's addition in 1991 did to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Either way, the liberal-conservative gulf will remain.
"The court," says Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who represents challengers to the travel ban, "is in some conflict."
In the meantime, it remains Kennedy's court, a fact that gives liberals a glimmer of hope that some of the major cases could tilt their way. With Kennedy considered likely to retire as soon as next year, and with Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer advancing in age, the court may not be evenly split for much longer.
“For almost all of these cases, I think it’s going to come down to Justice Kennedy," says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. “If this is Kennedy’s last term, it should be an amazing last term. In all of these controversial areas, he’s the decisive vote.”
• On the travel ban, Kennedy and the four conservative justices may have tipped their hands in June by allowing it to take effect temporarily, then blocking some federal appeals court rulings that would have added to the number of exempt travelers.
If the court is leaning toward approving the ban on immigrants from majority-Muslim countries and refugees without personal ties to the U.S., it will have to circumvent a last-minute problem. The case could be moot, or at least sent back to lower courts, because of changes announced Sunday. Now there are eight countries involved, rather than six, including North Korea and Venezuela, and the restrictions are indefinite, not temporary.
"When cases get tough, that's when justices look for off ramps, and there are a lot," says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School.
• Kennedy will be crucial in what could be the term's most consequential case testing the time-honored tradition of drawing political districts for partisan advantage. Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center, notes it's been called "the most important case involving the structure of American politics in a generation."
In three landmark cases from 1962, 1986 and 2004, the high court has failed to define how much gerrymandering of districts is too much. Liberal justices have found it unconstitutional; conservatives have said it's the legislature's prerogative. Kennedy remains in search of a standard.
The case, to be heard Tuesday, comes from Wisconsin, but about one-third of the districts drawn for Congress and state legislatures could be affected if the justices strike down the maps. Similar cases are pending in Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
"That could portend massive changes in our electoral system," says Christopher Landau, an appellate lawyer who argues frequently before the court.
• The sexiest case of the term comes from Colorado, where "cake artist" Jack Phillips' refusal to create a cake celebrating a gay couple's wedding on First Amendment grounds ran into state anti-discrimination laws. Georgetown University Law Center associate professor Martin Lederman says a key question is "whether cake speaks.”
Once again, convincing Kennedy is critical. On one hand, the 81-year-old justice has authored nearly all of the court's major rulings in favor of LGBT rights, including its 2015 decision declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
On the other hand, he is a firm defender of free speech rights, and his 2015 opinion specified that "those who adhere to religious doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
In another term, some of the court's second-tier cases would command the marquee:
• The first set of cases heard next Monday will determine whether employers can force workers to settle disputes through individual arbitration, rather than collective action. The court's conservatives have favored arbitration clauses in the past, making Gorsuch the key vote.
More interesting than the outcome may be the way the case is argued, since the Justice Department has switched sides and now opposes the position of a federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board.
• The biggest privacy case before the court will decide whether police can use geographic data from cellphone towers to track suspects' movements over time without first getting a warrant. Judging from the court's recent cases, "the government's got some problems," says appellate lawyer Erin Murphy.
Five years ago, the justices ruled unanimously that police could not track suspects by placing GPS devices on their cars. Three years ago, they again ruled unanimously that police need a warrant to search digital information on cellphones seized during an arrest. But federal appeals courts all have ruled that cellphone location data is fair game.
• Another in a series of voting rights cases headed to the court focuses on how voters are purged from registration rolls. Ohio's method begins by targeting those who have not voted in two years, which challengers say violates federal law.
The case arrives amid controversy over a commission Trump created to investigate voter fraud, which has been shown to be extremely rare in the past. And other disputes over state restrictions, including photo ID laws, could be headed to the court.
• The court will hear New Jersey's challenge to a federal law that limits betting on sports outside Nevada and Delaware. A decision by the court, which tends to favor states' rights, could force lawmakers to regulate gambling on amateur and professional sports before it proliferates.
Other major cases still could be added to the docket, including whether a 1964 law barring sex discrimination in the workplace extends to sexual orientation and whether unions can be barred from collecting fees from non-members.
Faced with the prospect of setting major new precedents, the court — and Roberts in particular — will have to decide how far to go amid the already fever-pitch partisan tensions in the country.
"The mood has gotten kind of ugly," says David Strauss, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "The chief justice may want to avoid the reflection that the court is replicating that ugliness."
Read more and see the Supreme Court's top cases:
The Supreme Court's top cases in 2017
Careers Staff Directory Accessibility Site Map Legals Our Ethical Principles Terms of Service Privacy Policy Your California Privacy Rights / Privacy PolicyDo Not Sell My Info / Cookie Policy
Contact Us Support Local Business Advertise Your Business Advertising Terms and Conditions Licensing & Reprints Help Center Subscriber Guide My Account Give Feedback