Oct. 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday, with incoming cases on questions of free speech, voting rights and climate change.
The high court has agreed to take up more than 20 cases in its new term, starting Monday with a case out of Colorado over the ability of local governments to sue energy companies over the harms of climate change.
Here are some of the influential cases that the Supreme Court is set to hear.
Suncor Energy Inc. vs. County Commissioners of Boulder County
Among the first cases that the court will take up this term is Suncor Energy Inc. vs. County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colo. The case asks the court to weigh whether federal law takes precedence over state law when there is a claim against an energy company for injuries related to climate change.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from participating in this case last week due to conflicts of interest. Alito holds stocks in about two dozen energy companies that could be affected by the outcome of this case.
The case directly involved Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, both companies that Alito does not hold a financial stake in. However, because a ruling will have a broader impact across the energy industry, Alito will sit this one out.
The lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colo., seeks millions in damages from Suncor and Exxon for expenses it has faced as a result of climate change. The energy companies are looking to the Supreme Court for relief, petitioning the court earlier this year.
Suncor and Exxon argue that Boulder, and other localities across the country, are trying to impose a carbon tax that would have an immense impact on the energy industry.
The larger issue at hand, one that the court is asked to rule on, is whether energy companies can be held accountable for the harms of climate change.
Before the Supreme Court answers that, it must also consider whether it is the appropriate venue to hear this case right now. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the case can move forward, which the high court may determine differently, but no state court has made a ruling on the arguments.
Voting and citizenship
Republican National Committee vs. Mi Familia Vota is as timely a case as any on the docket as it deals with proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters and state authority to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls.
The high court is asked to rule on two questions.
First, does the National Voter Registration Act prohibit the state of Arizona from requiring applicants for voter registration to show proof-of-citizenship?
Second, does the National Voter Registration Act prohibit Arizona from canceling the registrations of voters who are not citizens within 90 days of a federal election?
Proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting are a key policy President Donald Trump has pursued during his second term, ramping up unfounded claims of widespread non-citizen voting ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Arizona’s legislature made its move toward proof-of-citizenship before Trump’s return to office, approving new policies for voting in 2022. Those policies were immediately challenged by Mi Familia Vota and other advocacy groups, arguing that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits such measures from taking hold.
The initial lawsuit also referenced a 2018 consent decree in the state that settled a challenge to the state’s voter registration rules. The settlement, between Campaign Legal Center and Arizona’s secretary of state and Maricopa County, recognized that undue burdens were being placed on voters when registering to vote.
Under the settlement, local election officials are required to accept voter registrations without proof-of-citizenship.
Lower courts have sided with the plaintiffs in this case and the Republican National Committee is appealing to the Supreme Court, seeking to put proof-of-citizenship requirements in place.
The case is set to be argued on Dec. 8.
Constitutionality of assault rifle bans
The Supreme Court is consolidating the cases Viramontes vs. Cook County and Grant vs. Higgins to consider whether bans on assault rifles are constitutional.
The first case, brought in Cook County, Ill., challenges the county’s ban on assault rifles, claiming that it violates the Second and 14th Amendments. The Second Amendment violation is a standard argument in gun rights law.
The 14th Amendment is typically raised in cases involving citizenship rights and equal protections. Gun rights advocates argue that the 14th Amendment extends restrictions that were originally placed on the federal government by the Constitution to states as well, via the incorporation doctrine.
This understanding of the 14th Amendment acts as a lens through which to view the Second Amendment. Through that lens, the federal rights established under the Second Amendment extend to state and local laws.
The plaintiffs in the case are challenging the county’s ban on assault rifles, arguing that it violates their Second Amendment rights through the 14th Amendment.
The high court is asked to decide whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess an AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Lower courts have held that semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are not protected under the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates argue that innovations in firearms were assumed to come by the framers of the Constitution so the right to possess firearms regardless of their capabilities is guaranteed.
The Supreme Court to this point has not found that the right to possess any and all types of weapons is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its understanding has been that Second Amendment rights do not apply to weapons that are not typically possessed and used for law-abiding purposes.
In other words, if a weapon is typically used for the act of a crime, it is not protected by the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court will hear the consolidated case over the right to possess an assault rifle in December.
First Amendment, religious rights and public dollars for private schools
St. Mary Catholic Parish vs. Roy is a First Amendment and religious rights case that also addresses one of the biggest questions states have wrestled with in recent years: should tax dollars be used to fund private schools?
That last question has come into focus as Republican-led states and the Trump administration have sought to fund private schools, mostly Christian schools, with tax dollars. At the state level, this has been done through school choice voucher programs.
The Trump administration announced last week that it is launching its own school choice program, the Education Freedom Tax Credit, offering tax credits to people and nonprofit organizations that donate to education expenses, including private school tuition.
In St. Mary Catholic Parish vs. Roy, Catholic preschools under the Archdiocese of Denver argue that they are victims of religious discrimination due to being excluded from a statewide universal preschool program. The program gives financial support to families with children in public and private preschools.
The state of Colorado argues that the Archdiocese of Denver preschools are not eligible for the program because they do not allow families into their schools if they disagree with the church’s stance on gender and sexuality. Colorado also notes that the schools failed to sign the nondiscrimination agreement that it requires for eligibility.
Under the nondiscrimination agreement, preschools must accept students without discriminating against them or their families on the basis of “race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability.”
The schools say the nondiscrimination agreement is a violation of its First Amendment rights.
The lower courts have sided with the state, ruling that the Catholic preschools can be denied eligibility in the state program as it does not target or single out the schools based on their religious affiliations.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.