Law Professors Discuss Cases to Watch in the Supreme Court's Docket
As the Supreme Court begins its new term this week, law professors Jenny Roberts, Steve Vladeck, and Steve Wermiel, along with Chief Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center Elizabeth Wydra got together for the “17th Annual Looking Ahead at the New U.S. Supreme Court Term” panel to preview the cases the court is set to hear in the weeks ahead.
Fisher v. University of Texas
Having filed several amicus briefs with the Supreme Court last session, Wydra jumped right into briefing Fisher v. University of Texas, a case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Texas in Austin. The case, originally argued during the 2012-2013 term, returns from a remand to the 5th Circuit with greater focus on racial justice and equality.
“The climate, in which the case comes back, is a really interesting way to look at what the court will do this time,” Wydra says. “I assume Justice Kagan will still be recused, so that also puts us in an interesting possible 4:4 posture.”
Evenwel v. Abbott
Professor Wermiel discussed Evenwel v. Abbott, which is asking the court to rethink the one-person, one-vote rule. Two petitioners in Texas have asked to redraw the voting districts based on the eligible voters, rather than by population, thus eliminating children, non-citizens, undocumented immigrants, and prisoners.
“It seems odd to quote the state of Texas as the good guys in a civil rights case,” Wermiel says. “But the bottom line here is about equality of representation. Immigrants, who are not citizens, but reside in the state, are entitled to have their interests represented in the legislature.”
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
The decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the case on the constitutionality of public-sector unions under the First Amendment, will have a large impact on the 2016 election season, according to Wydra.
This politically charged case is backed by several conservative groups. Wydra contends that the decision to uphold the fair share fee would be a radical change of the First Amendment doctrine. It may undermine the ability of unions to organize on behalf of working Americans.
Foster v. Chatman
Professor Roberts looked into the criminal issues on the docket. She describes Foster v. Chatman, a case on race discrimination in jury selection, as notable for two reasons: the prosecutor’s notes are available for review, and a number of briefs were filed detailing the current and persisting discrimination in jury selection despite the ruling in Batson v. Kentucky.
The court will be deciding whether the state court erred in finding the defendant failed to meet Batson standards. However, the case will give the court a chance to address and potentially abolish peremptory challenges.
Montgomery v. Louisiana
Montgomery v. Louisiana, one of the of Eighth Amendment issues this session, asks whether the courts made a substantive decision in Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits life-without-parole sentences for juveniles.
“This case is not about guilt or innocence,” Roberts says. “It is only about whether or not this guy [Henry Montgomery] gets a shot at showing that he now should be able to get a parole hearing.”
Class Action Suit Cases
Professor Vladeck focuses on three cases with the potential make it infinitely harder to bring class action suits. Together Spokeo v. Robins, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (“The Chicken Case”), and Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez can undo the premises of class action procedures.
“From the perspective of class action lawyers, these three cases together are very worrisome,” says Vladeck. “The court seems poised to revisit some fairly fundamental premises about class litigation in general.”
More on the Docket
Watch the full discussion to hear about other cases in the pipeline, which may include a major abortion issue, a case looking at President Obama’s DREAM Act, and more.
###