Supreme Court

3 Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Month

The justices weigh abortion, school choice, and federal anti-discrimination law.

|

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2019–2020 term is rapidly reaching its conclusion. By the end of June, the Court is expected to decide several high-profile cases that involve some of the most contested issues in American law, from abortion to school choice to federal anti-discrimination rules. Here are three cases to watch in the coming weeks.

June Medical Services v. Russo

The state of Louisiana requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. That restriction sparked a constitutional challenge from abortion providers, who argue that the law serves no valid health or safety purpose and violates the Court's own precedents forbidding regulations that place an "undue burden" on abortion rights.

If that sounds familiar, it's because the Court decided a nearly identical dispute in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), striking down a Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Among other things, June Medical Services will show whether a majority of the Court is interested in following Whole Woman's Health or in crafting a new jurisprudence that is more deferential towards state restrictions on abortion.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

In 2015 the Montana legislature created a scholarship program "to provide parental and student choice in education." It operates by creating a tax credit for individuals and businesses that donate to private, nonprofit scholarship organizations, which then use such donations to fund educational scholarships. Families who qualify may use the money to help send their children to a "qualified education provider," a category which includes religiously affiliated K–12 private schools.

But the Montana Supreme Court killed the program off three years later, holding that it violated a provision of the Montana Constitution which bans the use of public funds "for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination."

The question for the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the state may prohibit the sort of school choice initiatives that the Court itself has previously upheld under the First Amendment. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), for example, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a school choice program in Cleveland, Ohio. The program's opponents claimed it was unconstitutional to provide tuition aid to parents who opted to send their children to religiously affiliated magnet schools. But the Court said such a system passes constitutional muster as long as it is "neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice."

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant or employee "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Gerald Lynn Bostock argues that Clayton County, Georgia, violated this provision when it fired him from his job as a child welfare services coordinator solely because of his sexual orientation. The far-reaching question before the Supreme Court is whether employment discrimination because of sexual orientation qualifies as employment discrimination "because of…sex" under Title VII.

As I've previously noted, Bostock and his lawyers have enlisted the support of a surprising legal ally in the case:

In their principal brief to the Supreme Court, Bostock and his lawyers rely in part on Justice [Antonin] Scalia's unanimous 1998 ruling in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. At issue was whether same-sex workplace harassment violated Title VII's prohibition on discrimination "because…of sex." Scalia held that it did.

"Male on male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII," Scalia acknowledged. "But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed." The protections of Title VII, Scalia concluded, "must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements."

Scalia, a self-described textualist, often argued that the plain meaning of a statute should trump the ostensible intentions, purposes, or expectations of the statute's authors and supporters. That was one of the reasons why Scalia famously rejected the use of legislative history in such statutory cases.

NEXT: 5 Ways to Curtail Police Violence and Prevent More Deaths Like George Floyd's

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>regulations that place an “undue burden” on abortion rights.

    no babies were interviewed.

    1. Abortion is placing an undue burden on the baby’s ability to seek an abortion in the future. It’s a violation of their right to privacy clearly.

      1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome.TEd Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks………. Online Jobs Provid

  2. OT – Chicago mayor tells retailers – “honey, I’m sorry, I don’t know what came over me, it was just a misunderstanding, I love you, please don’t leave!”

    https://wbbm780.radio.com/articles/mayor-lightfoot-pleads-with-walmart-to-not-abandon-chicago

    1. I hope Tina takes back Ike.

      1. Jassica T. Edwards Make 6150 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website…. Go to Articles

    2. “My hope is that they will come back,” Lightfoot said. “But I got a resounding, ‘Mayor, this is our city, this is our home,’ from a lot of other retailers and I would hope that Walmart would follow suit.”

      “Hope is not a strategy, but ‘Fuck you!’ is.”

  3. I am making more than 400 dollars online working from home. My last weekly payment was exactly 3192 dollars and the best part is you can join for free. Signup now and start making real money fast and easy.

    See my earnings and join on this official site…………….Home Profit System

  4. “Gerald Lynn Bostock argues that Clayton County, Georgia, violated this provision when it fired him from his job as a child welfare services coordinator solely because of his sexual orientation.”

    And the USSC justices are thick as a brick.

    1. let’s go living in the past.

  5. No one watches the punters, no matter how reliably they play their role.

  6. “The state of Louisiana requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.”

    Is this regulation consistent with how other outpatient surgical procedures are regulated? If it is, why does “generally applicable rules” not apply?

    1. Yes and no. It is consistent with how outpatient surgical procedures are regulated, however most abortions are not a surgical procedure, which is why they pass a separate regulation to sweep it in.

      The types of abortion that are considered surgical already fall under the existing surgical regulations

      1. most abortions are not a surgical procedure
        A million babies per year disagree.

        1. Instead of trotting out mindless slogans you might like to explain how these babies define “surgical” and provide data to support their position.

          1. Of course the babies “define” nothing. Perhaps if they were allowed to grow to maturity, they might define “surgical” as inserting any device beyond the cervix and removing the “embryo/fetus” (I know you prefer “blastocyst”) by mechanical means.

            1. That would be fine, but many abortions are medical not surgical and nothing like you described actually happens. And so the question remains is it acceptable to call a non surgically procedure a surgery to regulate it?

  7. But the Montana Supreme Court killed the program off three years later, holding that it violated a provision of the Montana Constitution which bans the use of public funds “for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.”

    Can we try it this way?
    “to aid any political party, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any left wing, progressive, or socialist group of any kind.”

    1. I’m game. But that would mean that virtually every school in America closes.

  8. I don’t really think its gonna happen Moving to Barnsley

  9. Gagal dan gagal lagi apa yang aku cari

    1. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. GDe To start making extra income please…

      visit this site………………………….Go to this link

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.