Supreme Court Begins Term With Divisive Social Issues On The Docket
Abortion and questions related to religious objections to contraception are among the issues the court will likely tackle.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Prepares To Take On Politically Charged Cases
The last Supreme Court term ended with liberal victories, conservative disarray and bruised relations among the justices. The new one, which opens on Monday, marks the start of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s second decade on the court and will reveal whether the last term’s leftward drift and acrimony were anomalies or something more lasting. The court will decide major cases on politically charged issues, including the fate of public unions and affirmative action in higher education. It will most probably hear its first major abortion case since 2007 and revisit the clash between religious liberty and contraception coverage. (Liptak, 10/4)
The Associated Press:
Familiar, Divisive Social Issues On Supreme Court Agenda
The Supreme Court is starting a new term that promises a steady stream of divisive social issues, and also brighter prospects for conservatives who suffered more losses than usual in recent months. ... Future cases will deal with abortion, religious objections to birth control, race in college admissions and the power of public-sector unions. Cases on immigration and state restrictions on voting also could make it to the court in the next nine months. The term will play out against the backdrop of the presidential campaign, in which some candidates are talking pointedly about the justices and the prospect of replacing some of them in the next few years. Four justices are in their 80s or late 70s, led by 82-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Sherman, 10/5)
Los Angeles Times:
Why Liberals Fear New Supreme Court Term Could Hurt Abortion Rights And Unions
After legalizing same-sex marriage and upholding provisions of President Obama’s legacy healthcare program for a second time, the Supreme Court justices return to work Monday in a new term that will put liberals on the defense. If the five conservative justices prevail in the year ahead, they could deal a severe blow to labor unions, rein in abortion rights under Roe vs. Wade, restrict college affirmative-action programs and shift political power away from Democratic-controlled election districts by redefining who gets counted as an eligible voter. (Savage, 10/5)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Faces Politically Charged Election-Year Docket
The contraceptives-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act is also making a return. The court already told the government last year, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, that the mandate impinged on the religious freedoms of some employers directed to carry it out. And, because the court long ago decided that states may impose some restrictions on abortion, the question in a coming case will be, how far may they go before it becomes an “undue burden” on a woman’s right? The court has provided little guidance on what that term means. (Barnes, 10/4)
Politico:
5 Cases To Watch As Supreme Court Term Begins
Litigation over state efforts to limit abortion by regulating clinics and doctors is making its way to the high court. And the justices are already facing a batch of petitions involving the rights of religious institutions to opt out of providing contraception under Obamacare. Both issues seem likely to land on this term's docket, although the justices haven’t formally taken up either. (Gerstein, 10/4)
USA Today:
On High Court's Docket: Race, Labor, Politics -- And Abortion?
The Supreme Court embarks on a new term Monday that would make Yogi Berra proud: It truly is déjà vu all over again. The justices will rule on affirmative action for the third time in four years. They will rule on public employee union fees for the third time in five years. They will deliver verdicts on class-action lawsuits and death penalty appeals, as they do virtually every year. Before the term is out next June, they likely will consider the Affordable Care Act's so-called "contraceptive mandate" for the second time in three years and update what they meant a generation ago in ruling that states could not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. (Wolf, 10/4)
