Over the last several weeks, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on a number of controversial and high-profile cases. These rulings, and the precedents they establish, have a number of important implications. Here’s a brief overview (and the Review’s analysis) of some of the most important SCOTUS developments of the summer:
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue:
Background: In 2015, Montana started a school choice program that gave tax-credits to entities that donated money to private, non-profit scholarship organizations. Parents, including the plaintiff, Kendra Espinoza, were subsequently barred from using these scholarships at religiously affiliated schools because of the state’s so-called “Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits “direct or indirect” funding of religiously affiliated educational institutions by the state.
Outcome: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Espinoza. They argued that it was discrimination to exclude religious schools from a tax-credit program simply because the school is religiously affiliated.
Analysis: The outcome was hailed as a major victory by religious organizations and school choice advocates. Citing the anti-Catholic history of Blaine Amendments, these groups argued that the outcome would both protect religious liberty and educational freedom.
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania:
Background: An amendment to the Affordable Care Act stipulated that employer-based insurance policies had to provide coverage for contraception. The Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic religious sisters who operate nursing homes for the elderly poor, argued that the contraceptive mandate violated their Catholic religious beliefs. In 2017, the Trump administration gave the Sisters an exemption from the mandate, but several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey filed lawsuits, claiming the exemption was unconstitutional.
Outcome: The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Little Sisters. They argued that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury do have the authority to create religious and moral exemptions under the ACA.
Analysis: While this was another victory for religious freedom, it might not be the end of trouble for the Little Sisters—who have been in and out of court for almost a decade, fighting the contraceptive mandate—because the Court’s ruling was relatively narrow. The Court argued that, while the HHS and other bureaucratic agencies can grant exemptions, those exemptions could be repealed by subsequent administrations. Justice Alito argued that the Court should have gone further, applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to mandate exemptions, not just permit them.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo:
Background: Louisiana passed a law in 2014 which mandated that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital (i.e., within thirty miles) in case serious medical complications arise during an abortion.
Outcome: The Court issued a plurality opinion in favor of June Medical services, arguing that the Louisiana law was essentially the same as a Texas law that had been previously struck down.
Analysis: The Court’s decision came as a disappointing surprise for many pro-life advocates. One of the biggest questions raised by dissenting Justices remains unanswered— whether doctors and abortion providers have the legal standing required to bring abortion cases. Laws that regulate abortion are often challenged on the grounds that they limit a woman’s right to have an abortion, not on the grounds that doctors somehow have a right to perform abortions. Yet in many cases,including June,doctors and abortion providers,not women who were unable to get abortions, were the plaintiffs. Because the legal question at hand has nothing to do with doctors’ rights, conservative justices argue that there was no legal standing for the case to be brought up.
Bostock v. Clayton County:
Background: In 2016, Gerald Bostock sued his former employer, Clayton County in Georgia, for firing him because of his sexual orientation. He argued that his firing was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The question at hand was whether the language of sex includes sexual orientation.
Outcome: In a 6-3 decision for Bostock, the Court ruled that the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does make sexuality a protected class. This would make it illegal to fire an individual for their sexual orientation.
Analysis: Many hailed the case’s outcome as a win for LGBT rights. The most fascinating part about the ruling was Justice Gorsuch’s vote. Considered a stalwart originalist and conservative, Gorsuch voted in the majority and authored the opinion. He argued that, because a woman would not get fired for dating or marrying a man, a man can not get fired for dating or marrying a man—otherwise, it would constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. This raised some eyebrows in originalist circles, because it’s highly dubious that this was the original intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, because Congress has not defined sexuality as a protected class, despite having a number of chances to do so, some argue that the Court’s decision took the form of activist legalism.