The term of the Supreme Court ends in the coming weeks and the most anticipated decisions will be made during this period.
About 18 rulings are still pending before the Supreme Court, covering some of the most divisive and influential issues facing the country. Here’s what are arguably the most important.
5. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
High school football coach Joseph Kennedy lost his job after he insisted on reciting prayers after the 50-year-old line-up, despite the fact that his employer, the Bremerton School District, ordered him to stop. Kennedy claims that this violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, while the school district claims that a prayer by a public school official violated the First Amendment clause.
The school district told Kennedy to stop praying on the field after an opposing coach brought it to the attention of the principal. He then temporarily notified the school that he would continue the practice. The situation caught the attention of the media and when Kennedy announced that he would return to prayer on the pitch, he raised security concerns. When he did pray after the game, several people stormed the stadium to show their support.
SCOTUS JUSTICES CONSERVATIVES OFFER SILENT SUPPORT FOR THE FOOTBALL COACH’S PRAYER ON THE COURT
The school district then offered to let Kennedy pray at other locations before and after the games or at the 50-yard line after everyone else had left the facility, but he refused, insisting he would continue his normal routine. practice. This eventually led the school district to take action against him.
The question is whether Kennedy’s prayer was a government speech because he was a civil servant, so he would not be protected. The court also considers whether, if the prayer is protected by private speech, the school could again tell him to stop, so that he is not considered to be supporting religion.
During the oral hearings, some judges appeared to be leaning towards Kennedy. Judge Clarence Thomas questioned whether Kennedy’s prayer could be considered government speech if the school district was strongly and publicly opposed.
Judge Elena Keegan raised the issue of possible coercion, as the students had come with Kennedy for prayer. A lower court opinion noted that a parent contacted the principal, who said his son “felt compelled to participate” in the prayer despite being an atheist, “he felt he would not play so much if he did not participate.”
Kennedy’s lawyer responded by saying that the school district had never mentioned such a thing when he was fired and that their only reason at the time was their interest in endorsing religion.
4. Biden v. Texas
The case focuses on the Trump administration’s Immigration Protection Protocols, commonly known as the “Stay in Mexico” policy, which said immigrants seeking asylum in the United States had to stay in Mexico while waiting for hearings. The Biden government tried to overturn the policy, but was blocked by a lower court.
SUPREME COURT JUDGES HEAR ARGUMENTS ON “STAY IN MEXICO” BORDER POLICY
The crux of the matter is whether the federal government can use discretion in carrying out the program or whether, as Texas and Missouri argue in their lawsuit, the policy is necessary to comply with federal law that says immigrants can not to be released in the US because the country does not have the resources to hold everyone.
Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar argued during the oral argument that if politics were necessary to comply with the law, then “any presidential administration on an unbroken line for the past fourth century is openly violating[.]”
Much of the argument concerned the language of the constitution. Prelogar cited a statute that said the attorney general “may return” foreigners from a neighboring area back to the territory while they wait for a hearing. Judge Clarence Thomas pointed out that the same statute states that if an immigration officer deems that an immigrant “is not clearly and unequivocally entitled” to be admitted “to the US, the immigrant” will be detained “, which the other side interpreted as a requirement. .
3. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
In what is likely the second Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in more than a decade, judges are set to decide whether New York’s licensing process is too restrictive. Existing rules require applicants to show “the appropriate cause” for the reason they must carry a firearm, and the government may exercise discretion in determining whether anyone has met this requirement. The result is that it is extremely difficult to obtain a license.
TERRITORIAL NEGOTIATORS MAY BE TEXT TEXT ON MONDAY, AS DISCUSSION CONCERNS STEAM AFTER THE MASS SHOOTING
During the oral hearings, conservative judges appeared to question the state’s position.
“Why is it not good enough to say that I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?” Judge Brett Cavanaugh asked.
In an exchange with Judge Samuel Alito, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood acknowledged that if an applicant stated that the permit was working late at night and had to walk from a subway station through a high crime neighborhood to return home , this person would refuse because they did not report a specific threat.
“How is this consistent with the basic right to self-defense?” asked Alito, stating that this is at the core of the second amendment.
2. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
While this case – which is actually four cases coming together to be resolved – does not focus on serious political issues but on the much drier world of agency action, its outcome may have the greatest impact from all these cases.
The question is whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to issue sweeping rules that could repair industry practices and the country’s electricity grid to tackle climate change.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) logo appears on a door at its headquarters on March 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. US President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for 2018 seeks to reduce the EPA budget by 31 percent from $ 8.1 billion to $ 5.7 billion. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
In 2015, the Obama administration’s Clean Energy Plan aimed to reduce carbon emissions at power plants. The bill was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016 and subsequently scrapped by the Trump administration and replaced by the less extreme clean energy (ACE) rule. Following the inauguration of President Biden, however, the ACE Rule became the subject of a dispute which led the DC Court of Appeal to repeal the rule and to repeal the Clean Energy Plan.
The Supreme Court is now considering this decision.
The Biden government argues that the EPA has the power to unilaterally adopt broad requirements for improving the environment. West Virginia and other states argue that this runs counter to the “big question doctrine.” This doctrine states that although federal agencies generally have broad powers to enact rules, as delegated by Congress through the statutes they create, when it comes to matters of major economic and political importance to the country, these statutes must be clear. language to support the action of the body.
The Biden government also claims that the case does not even belong to the Supreme Court because the EPA said it would not reinstate the Clean Energy Plan, choosing instead to develop and enforce its own rules. The government has argued that without any EPA rules currently in force, the other side is simply claiming a possible future rule and not for any actual current damage.
The case could determine the fate of President Biden’s climate agenda, as well as set a significant precedent for how other federal agencies can act.
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Waiting for a verdict in this case has already led to protests outside the Supreme Court and the homes of several judges, as well as a charge of attempted murder against a man who allegedly planned to kill Judge Cavanaugh. All this was triggered by the publication of a draft opinion by Judge Samuel Alito, which, if published as a court opinion, would overthrow Roe vs. Wade and eliminate the recognition of the constitutional right to abortion. The case came after the Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, in stark contrast to Roe’s pattern of banning abortions before fetal viability – which is thought to be around 23 weeks. The subsequent appeal now puts the Supreme Court in a position to examine whether a prohibition on viability should be allowed. PRO-LIFERS OBJECTIVES MORE THAN 40 TIMES AT ATTACKS, VANDALISM, BENEFITS FROM LEAKING BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE TEAM SAYS During the oral argument, some judges appeared to be interested in finding a way to maintain the 15-week ban without abolishing Roe altogether. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts spoke of a possible abolition of the sustainability model, while ensuring that women have the opportunity to have an abortion. Both sides of the issue expressed skepticism that this was a viable option. Alito, in his draft opinion, not only said that Mississippi law should apply, but eliminated Roe and the case that confirmed it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He said directly that the cases should be canceled, which would put abortion rights in the hands of individual states, where elected officials can set their own standards. After Politico published Alito’s draft, the Supreme Court issued a statement stating that it is common practice for draft opinions to be circulated among judges as part of the decision-making process and that the draft does not state what the final decision of the Court will be. CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION The country will wait now and see if Alitos …
