Coming to the Supreme Court.

• Author: Sorenen, Lisa
• Position: Trends

After a year of controversial rulings with a direct state impact--with same-sex marriage and health care subsidies grabbing the headlines in 2015--the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing another group of cases on controversial topics this year. Adding to the intrigue, many of the court's decisions are likely to be discussed by the 2016 presidential candidates. Below are some of the most significant cases for the states.

Redistricting: The one-person, one-vote principle, under the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, requires that voting districts have similar population numbers so that votes in each district count equally. But two questions remain. Who do you count--total population or eligible voting population--and who gets to decide? The court will answer these questions in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case from Texas.

Public Sector Collective Bargaining: If public employees choose not to join a union--that is, opt out--they are required to pay their "fair share" of collective bargaining costs. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the court will decide whether to flip the order and allow employees to opt in, instead of requiring them to opt out. Overturning either fair share or opt out would substantially weaken public sector unions.

Affirmative Action: For the second time, the court will hear the argument of a white Texas woman who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. Abigail Fisher claims the school's race-conscious admissions policy, which uses race among a range of factors in filling about one-quarter of incoming freshman classes, is unconstitutional. The court will decide, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

Juvenile Life in Prison: In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not sentence juvenile offenders to life in prison with no chance of parole. The Louisiana Supreme Court has since found that Miller does not apply to those convicted before the 2012 ruling. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court will decide whether Miller is retroactive, potentially affecting more than 2,000 prisoners.

Asset Forfeiture: In Luis v. United States, the court will determine whether, in cases of fraud, assets not traceable to the alleged fraud can be frozen to provide restitution to the victims if the defendant is convicted. The case involves a Medicare fraud scheme amounting to upwards of $45 million, most of which has been spent. The defendant, Sila Luis, argues that if all of her assets...