Updated Supreme Court Scorecard: Final 2016 Edition
The Supreme Court’s current term is now over, and it’s time to review the major decisions from the Justices from the past few months.
On Monday, June 27, the Court announced its final decisions in three cases, two of which were considered major cases. The Justices will conclude some housekeeping business this week and head into a summer vacation period.
Cases Announced On Monday
Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (Abortion)
Status: Arguments on March 2, 2016; Decision: June 27, 2016
The petitioners in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt claimed a Texas law enacted in 2013 would force about 75 percent of the state’s abortion services to close. Two provisions in the law required that doctors at clinics have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinics, and that clinics have facilities equal to those of an outpatient surgical center. Texas officials believe the laws protect the health of the women seeking abortions by guaranteeing better care.
A divided Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law that placed restrictions on how women can gain access to abortions at clinics.
In a 5-3 decision, Justice Stephen Breyer said that “both the admitting privileges and surgical center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”
United States v. McDonnell (Political Corruption)
Status: Arguments on April 27, 2016; Decided: June 27, 2016
This case involves former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. In the public corruption verdict against McDonnell, the case pivoted on the definition of alleged “official acts” undertaken by McDonnell to benefit a businessman, and if those acts were actually bribes.
McDonnell and his wife were convicted under a handful of laws that make it a crime to take money or other valuable things in return for the exercise of “official acts” in government, at the national, state or local level. Congress, in passing those laws, however, did not specify what “official acts” would be covered. McDonnell’s prison sentence was on hold while the Court considered the case, and his wife’s separate case was on hold.
A unanimous Supreme Court vacated McDonnell’s corruption conviction, disagreeing with how his alleged criminal acts were defined.
Cases Previously Decided
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Affirmative Action)
Status: Argued on Dec. 9, 2015; Decided on June 23, 2016
In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a landmark challenge to affirmative action at Texas’ flagship public university. The University of Texas is required to admit all high school seniors who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Candidates for any remaining spots undergo a “holistic” evaluation process in which race is among the considered factors.
The Court has heard this case before. In 2013, the Court indeed issued a decision, but it sent the case back to the lower courts to be reviewed under a tougher constitutional standard.
On June 23, the Supreme Court affirmed, in a 4-3 decision from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a lower court ruling that allowed the University of Texas to use a race-conscious admissions policy under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
“The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admission policies,” Kennedy said.
United States v. Texas (Immigration)
Status: Granted on January 19, 2016; Decided on June 23, 2016
The Supreme Court heard a dispute between President Barack Obama and 26 states over the President’s ability to issue sweeping executive orders about immigration.
The 26 states had hoped the Supreme Court would rule on several issues, including the ability of the states to sue the Obama administration; the alleged constitutional overreach of the executive branch in forming immigration policies conflicting with laws passed by Congress; and the alleged unwillingness of President Obama to honor the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause” to execute laws passed by Congress.
Instead, the Justices considered two of the three questions: on standing and the Take Care clause.
Two lower courts that ruled on the case agreed that the state of Texas had standing to sue the Obama administration because it had been potentially injured by immigration enforcement decisions, which could defer the deportation of 5 million undocumented immigrants. In November 2015, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction that blocked President Obama’s executive orders on immigration from taking effect.
The orders seek to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which gave prosecutorial discretion regarding the enforcement of immigration laws against “certain young people.” The orders would make millions more eligible for the program. A November 2014 executive action also established the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA), which allows the parents of U.S. citizens to remain “lawfully present” in the United States. The District Court determined that at least 4.3 million individuals would be eligible for lawful presence under DAPA.
On June 23, in a 4-4 tie, the divided Court said in a one-sentence per curium opinion that the judgment of the lower court in United States v. Texas, was confirmed, leaving in place an injunction against President Barack Obama’s recent deferred immigration policies.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Public Union Dues)
Status: Arguments on Jan. 11, 2016; Decided on March 29, 2016
Friedrichs is a challenge to the practices of public unions. The Court was asked to determine whether requiring public school teachers to pay mandatory dues for union activities violates the First Amendment.
California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, supported by the Center for Individual Rights, argued that she should have no obligation to pay any union dues whatsoever, since any payment is still a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech.
A defeat for the Teachers Association would have affected public-employee unions in about half the states that have “fair share” requirements.
Instead, a divided Court affirmed by a tie vote the rights of public unions to ask teachers to pay union dues, in a one-sentence statement. That decision sends the case back to lower courts to consider again and leaves in place the precedent that teachers and other public workers, in about half on the nation’s unions, need to pay fees to support unions, even if they don’t participate in them.
Evenwel v. Abbott (One Person, One Vote)
Status: Arguments on Dec. 8, 2015; Decided on April 4, 2016
In this case, the Court decided if eligible voting population numbers can be substituted for total population numbers when voting districts are determined.
Back in 2013, the Texas legislature drafted new districts for electing the 31 members of the state senate. The lawmakers proceeded on a theory of equal representation by actual population, with just an 8.04 percent difference between the largest and the smallest districts. But the Texas legislature based its headcount on the total population of each district and not the numbers of people eligible to vote in each district. Due to an imbalance in the voting age population in the districts, the difference between the largest and the smallest districts rose to as much as 49 percent, when it came to who could actually cast votes.
In a decision written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court said that Texas can determine its voting districts based on total population numbers, and isn’t required to use a system based on numbers related to registered voters. The decision, however, didn’t preclude the ability of a state to establish a representation system based on registered voters, if it so desired.
Spokeo v. Robins (The Right To Standing To Sue)
Status: Arguments on November 5, 2015; Decided: May 16, 2016
The Spokeo case could set some important precedents about data privacy and the ability to sue Internet services that publish personal data about consumers. But for now, the Supreme Court sent in back to the lower court system in a 6-2 decision.
Thomas Robins from Virginia claims that he has a right to sue Spokeo, an Internet data provider, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after it publicly published incorrect data about Robins. Spokeo counters that Robins can’t prove he was actually hurt by the false data that was published, and that the act passed by Congress doesn’t allow standing to sue absent tangible proof of actual harm.
The Justices said the Ninth Circuit needs to look at the case again. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the lower courts didn’t fully consider an analysis to find an injury suffered was “concrete” in full legal terms. “Because the Ninth Circuit failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement, its Article III standing analysis was incomplete,” Alito said.
Article III standing requires that concrete harm needs to be proven before a federal court will consider a case in full.
Zubik vs. Burwell (Obamacare)
Status: Arguments Heard March 23, 2016, Decided on May 16, 2016
The United States Supreme Court in November consolidated seven cases challenging Obamacare’s birth-control mandate into one: Zubik v. Burwell. The current legal challenge, the fourth to be accepted by the Court since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, involves religious-sponsored non-profit corporations.
These institutions object on moral grounds to an Obamacare provision that allows their employees to obtain contraceptive coverage through their health insurance, even if those contraceptive products are provided by insurance companies and the government, instead of the institutions.The groups argue that even indirect participation in such a plan is offensive, and they want to be included in a broader Obamacare exception extended to churches, synagogues and worship-based employers.
The federal government believes that religiously oriented non-profit institutions such as hospitals and universities have numerous employees who don’t share the beliefs of religious groups that sponsor the non-profits, and these workers would be harmed by the exclusions.
On May 16, the Court said it won’t decide this dispute over Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate and religious rights, telling lower courts and the parties involved to find a compromise solution. In an unsigned five-page opinion in the Zubik v. Burwell case, the Court reached the conclusion that “in light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacates the judgments below and remands to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D. C. Circuits.”
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Ex-Governor McDonnell gets big Supreme Court win
Supreme Court rules against Texas abortion restrictions
Court upholds federal domestic violence gun restriction statute
Lyle Denniston joins National Constitution Center as Supreme Court correspondent
