High court, high stakes: states await landmark decisions by the Supreme Court on several critical issues.

AuthorSoronen, Lisa
PositionFROM D.C. - Column

You can't get much more interesting than what's on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for next term--partisan gerrymandering, the travel ban, religious liberty and sports gambling. The court rarely accepts cases as important as these four (and maybe five) are to states.

Partisan Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court will decide whether drawing maps that give one party a clear political advantage over the other--known as partisan gerrymandering--is unconstitutional.

The court agreed to hear a case from Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford, on whether the Legislature violated the constitution by redrawing state Assembly district maps to favor Republican candidates. Based on a new formula that its creator claims calculates the level of partisan gerrymandering, a panel of federal judges ruled that the districts were a result of partisan gerrymandering, prohibited by the First and 14th amendments.

The Travel Ban

The high court has agreed to hear a case challenging the president's executive order that prevents people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days, freezes decisions on refugee applications for 120 days and caps total refugee admissions at 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, the court will decide whether the decision to deny a visa is reviewable, whether the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause and whether the travel ban became moot on June 14,2017. The court concluded that until it rules on the merits of this case, the executive order cannot be enforced against people, including refugees, who have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

Religious Freedom

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involves the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack C. Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. The couple claimed Phillips was in violation of Colorado's public accommodations law. Phillips responded that being required to comply with the law would violate his First Amendment rights.

The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Phillips' claims, stating his business "does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law and serving its customers equally." The Colorado court also concluded that the state's public accommodations law is "rationally related to Colorado's interest to eliminate...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT