WAITING FOR THE RIGHT ONE TO COME ALONG | SCOTUS Says No To LGBT Workplace Discrimination Case | Says Yes To DACA Challenge And More Gerrymandering From Maryland
December 11, 2017
WAITING FOR "THE ONE"
|This morning the justices decided not to take up a case that could have settled whether a federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against gay and lesbian workers. However, SCOTUS is widely expected to hear a similar case in the near future because federal appeals courts are split on whether workplace discrimination laws protect sexual orientation. It’s possible the justices passed up their chance to rule on this issue for now because they’re waiting for a case currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.
FRIDAY FUNDAY
|ICYMI, the justices added seven cases to its docket on Friday, including a second partisan gerrymandering case. Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports the addition seems to suggest that justices are taking seriously the question of whether warped voting maps cross a constitutional line. Liptak notes, “The court has never struck down a voting district as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. A ruling allowing such challenges could reshape American politics.”
IT'S NOT YOU, IT'S ALSO ME
|Jess Bravin with The Wall Street Journal also notes that the addition of the second gerrymandering case—which comes to SCOTUS by way of a Maryland lawsuit—suggests that the justices don’t think legal theories presented in the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case were sufficient enough to justify a constitutional limit on the practice. Additionally, this Maryland case asserts that a Maryland map disfavors Republicans while the Wisconsin case argues partisan gerrymandering targeted Democrats. Bravin: “By taking the Maryland case, the court underscored that partisan gerrymandering isn’t the province of one party alone, but a tool that can be employed by either Republicans or Democrats to extend power when they hold the political advantage.”
JUST STAY OUT OF IT
|Also on Friday, a divided Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration doesn’t have to turn over additional documents detailing the decision to end the DACA program that protects an estimated 800,000 children. SCOTUS noted it would consider the matter further, and it set an expedited briefing schedule. The dispute over documents was born out of five consolidated lawsuits in California that accuse administration officials of acting unlawfully when they abruptly rescinded the program. The administration’s request was granted by the conservative members of the court while while the liberal justices noted in their 10-page dissent that the court was making a mistake getting involved at this point.
GHOST OF YOU
|In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage writes that the ghost of the late JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA “hangs over the Supreme Court perhaps never more so than as the justices struggle with the case of the Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.” It’s not only Scalia’s words and views that left a mark on the high court, but also a 1990 opinion that “looms uncomfortably over the court these days.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The Washington Post thinks the big SCOTUS case over cellphone data privacy should send a serious signal to Congress: It’s high time for new legislation to draw the boundaries on privacy for us all.
COURT-MADE POLICY
|David Bookbinder writes for Vox that the worst way to do policy is through the courts, but unfortunately that’s where we may be headed given the climate policies coming down from the Trump administration. “Washington’s climate policy failure may inspire a judicial move. Indeed, two new types of cases are beginning to wend their way through the system, both of which have the potential for dramatic impacts extending far beyond the wrangling over the legality of each particular EPA action (or inaction).”
TRUMP V. TEENS
|A couple of years ago, a group of 21 kids sued the federal government for failing to protect the country’s air, land and water. The suit wasn’t likely to get very far. But after surviving several challenges, the case goes to court today and the Justice Department and teens will argue over whether Americans can claim damaging environmental policy is a violation of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Bloomberg’s Kartikay Mehrotra reports that a ruling allowing the case to move toward trial would be the first of its kind and would almost certainly get a SCOTUS review.