AMAC Exclusive – By Seamus Brennan
After a historic term for the Supreme Court in 2021-2022—during which the High Court overturned Roe v. Wade and solidified the most significant Second Amendment victory in more than a decade, among other important rulings—the Court is once again poised to hand down several potential landmark decisions by the conclusion of its term this summer.
If the Supreme Court delivers another slate of victories for constitutional conservatives, it will be a significant blow to the radical left legal movement, as well as the “creeping Taneyism” of Chief Justice John Roberts that has prevailed in recent years.
Here are three of the most high-profile issues the Court will address in the coming year.
In December, the Court heard arguments for 303 Creative v. Elenis, a high-profile religious liberty case in which Lorie Smith, a Colorado-based graphic designer, is challenging a law that would compel her to design websites for same-sex weddings, which violate her religious beliefs. Smith argues that the Colorado law in question forces her to implicitly support same-sex marriages and prohibits her from explaining her rationale for declining to design websites for same-sex couples.
Based on last month’s oral arguments, it appears the Court may rule in her favor. According to SCOTUSblog, Chief Justice John Roberts argued “that the Supreme Court has never approved efforts to compel speech that is contrary to the speaker’s belief”—a sentiment that was echoed by the other five conservatives on the Court. This case has many similarities to that of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, one of the litigants in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, who has thus far successfully resisted an onslaught of legal retribution for his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple.
The Court is also expected at the conclusion of this term to hand down two major decisions pertaining to election law, both of which could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential and congressional elections. In Moore v. Harper, the justices will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court can constitutionally invalidate congressional maps drawn by the state legislature and replace them with maps of its own. Last February, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned a map drawn by the legislature, claiming that the legislature’s map was an instance of unlawful partisan gerrymandering. The High Court will decide whether the state Supreme Court’s actions violate the elections clause of the Constitution, which maintains that the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
In another election law case, Merrill v. Milligan, the Court will decide whether Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting laws. Last February, the High Court temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that invalidated the redistricting plan. According to SCOTUSblog, the High Court “appeared inclined to permanently set aside the district court’s ruling” and allow the plan to stay in place in its October oral arguments.
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC—likely the most contentious cases this term—the High Court will consider whether to re-assess its controversial 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that affirmative action in college admissions does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Students for Fair Admissions, the challenger in both cases, is a nonprofit group representing students and parents alleging that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are guilty of intentionally discriminating against Asian American applicants. The group argues that Asian American students “are less likely to be admitted than similarly qualified” applicants of other races due to affirmative action policies that unfairly weight an applicant’s race when considering them for admission.
The group’s claims are in part substantiated by a 2018 Heritage Foundation report, which found that “an Asian American with a 25 percent chance of admission to Harvard would see his chances rise to 35 percent if he were white, 75 percent if he were Hispanic, and 95 percent if he were black.” During oral arguments last fall, Students for Fair Admissions argued that UNC is guilty of violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and that Harvard has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.
The Students cases are the best opportunity in recent history to deal a blow to the left’s identity politics regime, as well as the greatest chance to date to dismantle the racially biased practice of affirmative action.
These cases make up just a few of the banner decisions the Court is expected to release this June, a list that includes a legal challenge to Joe Biden’s attempted termination of the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, as well as a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
But regardless of how the Court rules in each of these cases, one thing remains certain: with the Court’s recently solidified 6-3 conservative majority—bolstered by Donald Trump’s three nominees—the conservative legal movement finds itself in a once-in-a-generation position to check the left’s usurpation of the constitutional order. Following what was one of the most successful years in court for conservatives in United States history, the Supreme Court may now be entering a golden age for constitutionalism.
We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...
Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.Donate Now
As to election districts being redistricted a very simple solution would be to create a computer program with rules of: number of districts and the number of legal voting age citizens in each city / township with a process and set of rules on grouping adjacent municipalities into districts.
Note: the data should not include ANY information on previous voting records or political party makeup. Truly non-partisan.
Unfortunately I am not sure how they are getting accurate population counts for legal voters since Democrats did not allow information to be captured on citizenship within the census! We should all realize that states with a high number of Illegals in their states may have benefited by possibly getting an extra number of Congressional Representatives and/or Electoral votes.
The idea that the Trump Presidency was nothing more than a noise making distraction and anomaly takes a bit of a hit in this article. The return to a federal republic continues apace because of his very existence. Just when you believe everything the founders created is within reach of being destroyed, evidence to the contrary appears. Even if they steal everything that isn’t bolted down, they can’t steal every branch of government at once. At least not yet.
Progress!!! Allowing the suffocation of pure democracy through partisan and abject racial gerrymandering!
“Pure democracy”, never invisioned by the Founders. Read the Federalist Papers and find out that Hamilton tried to avoid “democracy” in the new Constitution.
Obviously, since to almost to a man they all believed women and slaves shouldn’t have the right to vote.
The legacy of slavery lives on through racial gerrymandering, especially in the south, Alabama.
As opposed to New York state, which gerrymanders based on whatever enhances Democrat control. So, what’s your point? That states gerrymander? Yeah, it happens. So what. It’s not a legacy of racism. It’s a legacy of power.
The college admissions case is a waste of time…if schools can’t use “race” as a factor they’ll do a backdoor and base it on economics or something so they can get kids they want. It will be become an economic test or bonus points if you come from a broken family. Just like they are removing SAT and ACT requirements.
It’s nice to win the premise, but these schools are run by people smart enough to figure out another system to get their goal. Worst case the new system is in place for 10 years until they figure out another system. Courts move slow.
why do you hate Asians?
We need term limits for the Supreme Court. No office should be forever. This court can not reveal who let the Roe vs Wade decision. Was it Roberts?
Would you want term limits if the Court was comprised of liberals?
A lot will depend on John Roberts who sways with the prevailing wind! Will he actually defend the Constitution or cater to the lamestream media?
Hopefully, all he does is make a difference between a 6-3 and a 5-4 decision.
You’re asking this question about the judge who personally rewrote ObamaCare to make it constitutional?
Will the decisions be political correct OR judicially correct???
With a 6-3 or at a minimum 5-4 court, they should be judicially correct.
Decisions yes, enforcement, maybe?Politicians and bureaucrats have always been cunning to circumvent laws they don’t like. But unlike we citizens who risk speeding or an occasional cellphone infraction, representatives are bound by the so-called oath they swore to uphold. Never once have they been held accountable for their failure to do so.
Decisions yes, enforcement definitely.
The biggest decision they could make is to overturn the corrupted election. Or at least demand it is investigated. An America without confidence in its elections isn’t America.
I may be mixing up my events, but weren’t they ask to step in at some point but refused?
Yes. Sydney Powell and others had proof of electronic corruption and brought it to the Supreme Court. Apparently the other judges wanted to review it, but Justice Roberts was heard (through closed doors) screaming at them and demanding that they not look at it. Every time some of the crap that Biden has done is out there tearing apart our country I blame Roberts. IMO he is a wormy, sniveling, coward! Do not, for heavens sake, impeach a great justice like
Thomas – impeach Roberts!
Small business should be allow to choose who they sell to. If you don’t agree with them – go somewhere else – find a vendor you agree with. I wouldn’t want to do business with someone that doesn’t want my business (i.e., stopped doing business with Best Buy during COVID because they became mask Nazi’s “you must wear mask and wear it exactly like this” chasing you all around the store). OUR religious freedoms MUST BE PROTECTED!!!!! STOP FORCING CHRISTIANS TO DO THINGS THAT GOES AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS. They accommodate other religious (Islam etc.) and wouldn’t dare think of making them do something that goes against their faith.
I agree, would you force a Jewish Baker to make a Nazi Cake? And why would you want to support someone who has no interest in your business. As soon as I’ve seen certain political signs in a store, I stop going.
Will be interesting to see if the Gerrymandering decision is handed down, what happens in Illinois with the most gerrymandered districts in the country.
God bless America! I am thankful and grateful for the vision of the founding fathers as they drafted the Constitution!
And I am thankful to God who guided all that they did