Each year, the United States Supreme Court agrees to hear certain cases, and the 2021-22 year is no different. The high court usually hear the big and important cases. Zack Smith and Alexander Phipps at The Heritage Foundation previewed what they considered to be “five of the most important cases the Supreme Court will hear in its 2021-2022 term.” Here are their five choices.
1. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization
This is the most important abortion case
in the last 30 years. Essentially, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity
to reconsider – and potentially overrule – its wayward decisions in Roe v.
Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In 2018, Mississippi enacted the Gestational
Age Act, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation except in cases
of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality.
The state legislature set forth two findings
in the law: 1) 75% of all nations do not permit abortions past 12 weeks’
gestation, and 2) an unborn human’s heart starts beating after five to six
weeks’ gestation and by nine weeks all “basic physiological functions are
present.” …
It’s hard to overstate the potential
impact of this ruling, whether it be a decision upholding the lower courts’
decisions and reaffirming Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which
would be a huge blow to the pro-life movement, a moderate ruling that would
gradually diminish prior abortion precedents, or a broad decision completely
overturning its previous decisions.
2. New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association Inc. v. Bruen
This will be the first time in 11 years
that the Supreme Court will review a significant Second Amendment case.
New York requires its residents to obtain
a license for lawful possession of a firearm, regardless of whether they plan
to keep it at home or take it outside. To obtain a license, a licensing officer
must determine whether the applicant is of good moral character, lacks a
history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause exists for the
denial of the license.” …
3. Carson v. Makin
The Carson and Nelson families are
challenging Maine’s prohibition of applying state funds from the state’s
tuition assistance program towards secondary schools that, in addition to
teaching academic subjects, provide religious instruction.
Petitioners argue this law prevents their
families from using the funds towards the schools they consider to be best for
their children and, more importantly, that it violates their Constitutional
rights under the free exercise, establishment, and equal protection clauses…
The issue before the Supreme Court is
whether a state violates the First or 14th Amendments by prohibiting
students from choosing to use student-aid funds towards schools that provide
religious instruction.
4. CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe
This case raises the issue of whether
policies that disparately impact disabled groups violate the
anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act and the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The respondents, using “John Doe” aliases,
are enrollees of employee-sponsored health care who are afflicted with HIV. The
petitioners, all wholly owned subsidiaries of CVS Health Corporation, provide
the John Does with their medication….
The outcome of this case will clarify
whether, and if so the extent to which, facially neutral policies can be deemed
discriminatory if they disparately impact a distinct group.
5. United States v. Zubaydah
This case involves the state-secrets
privilege, which was established by Supreme Court precedent in United States v.
Reynolds. In United States v. Reynolds, the Supreme Court held that courts must
exclude privileged evidence if it threatens national security interests.
Abu Zubaydah is a former associate of
Osama bin Laden who was detained in Pakistan by the CIA for being an enemy
combatant and put in a detention facility in Poland. During his time there, the
CIA used enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah.
Poland launched a criminal investigation
into the CIA’s operations there, and Zubaydah asked a U.S. federal district
court to order the U.S. government to provide Poland with information
pertaining to his detention. The district court was initially willing to grant
discover for these materials until the U.S. government blocked it, citing the
state secrets privilege established in the United States v. Reynolds….
The issue before the Supreme Court is
whether the 9th Circuit erred in its assessment of these materials
concerning their potential to harm national security.
The
five outlined cases include abortion, Second Amendment, religious freedom,
treatment of disabled persons, and national security issues – all important
matters. However, as Smith and Phipps reminded their readers, these are “only a
few of the cases” that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. Other
cases are “important death penalty cases” and “a host of other important cases.”
We should all pray for the justices that they will judge the cases according to
the Constitution and not be swayed by political pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment