The Supreme Court Minus Scalia, a case breakdown

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco (5.5 minute read)

The big news over the weekend is the passing of Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Antonin Scalia. There’s been a relentless stream of reports and analysis about the effect of Scalia’s death on the ideological balance of the Court, on the presidential election and on the cases to be heard before the Court’s term is finished in June.

We’ll start with that. Every issue before the court this session affects Latinos and Latinas in some way – some in a more direct way than others, and being that all U.S. Latinos are citizens or in some form residents, the decisions will touch all Americans.

Two lines in The Charlotte News Observer puts the SCOTUS voting math into perspective:

“Until a new justice is appointed – and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised a delay for anyone President Barack Obama nominates – there could be a succession of 4-to-4 vote standoffs among the remaining justices.

“In such cases where there is a tie, the lower court ruling stands as if the high court had never heard the case.”

►So, these are the cases coming up:

Voting Rights – The New York Times

Evenwel v. Abbott. It concerns the meaning of “one person, one vote,” asking who must be counted in creating voting districts: all residents or just eligible voters?

The difference matters because people who are not eligible to vote — children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants, people disenfranchised for committing felonies, prisoners — are not spread evenly across the country. Except for prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas, amplifying the voting power of Democrats.

A ruling requiring or allowing the counting of only eligible voters now seems less likely, and a 4-to-4 split would leave in place an appeals court decision upholding Texas’ practice of counting everybody.

Immigration – San Francisco Chronicle

. . . a challenge by 26 Republican-led states to Obama’s November 2014 executive order that would grant a three-year reprieve from deportation to immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents — if the parents had no serious criminal records — and allow them to apply for work permits. It would also expand an earlier program halting deportation of immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children. More than 4 million immigrants would be affected.

A 4-4 vote would leave in place a lower-court ruling that found the president exceeded his authority and barred enforcement of his order nationwide. But the issue could return to the Supreme Court if a future Democratic president issued a similar order. It’s also possible that one or more conservative justices will decide the states lacked legal authority to challenge Obama’s order because they failed to show it would cause them tangible harm.

Affordable Care Act – NPR

Zubik v. Burwell. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers offering health care plans must include contraceptive coverage. Churches and other religious organizations were exempt, but other religious non-profits such as schools have wanted to be exempt too and sued to get it in the Hobby Lobby case. The plaintiffs here object to participating in any way with the contraceptive-related provisions of the law, even to use the work-around provisions provided for them,saying it would violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.Seven different circuit courts of appeals have ruled in favor of the government on this issue, but the Supreme Court took it for review. If the lack of Scalia’s vote ties this decision at 4-4, the lower courts’ rulings will prevail.

Redistricting in Arizona – Arizona Daily Star

The death Saturday of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could undermine efforts by Arizona Republicans to undo the state’s 30 legislative districts.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who asked the high court in December to void the current lines, said much of his pitch was based on the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement. Brnovich said that was squarely aimed at Scalia, who defined himself as an “originalist,” believing the language of the Constitution means exactly what it says.

What makes Scalia’s death significant for that case is the possibility the court would have ruled 5-4 that the Independent Redistricting Commission acted illegally in creating districts with unequal populations. Without Scalia — assuming he would have sided with the challengers — that would result in a 4-4 tie, leaving intact the lower court ruling, which concluded the commission did not act illegally.

And that, in turn, means the current lines remain through at least the 2020 election . . .

Abortion – USA Today

Abortion clinics in Texas are challenging a state law, upheld in lower courts, that imposes tough new restrictions on doctors and facilities. The case has shaped up to be the biggest one affecting reproductive rights since 1992.

Now, however, it appears that if supporters of abortion rights don’t win outright with the support of Kennedy or another conservative justice, a 4-4 tie upholding the Texas law would not set a new national precedent for federal courts to follow.

Affirmative Action – NPR

Fisher II. The University of Texas at Austin admits most of its freshman class by taking anyone from the top 10 percent of a Texas high school graduating class. But it also reserves space for others with other things to offer, including racial diversity. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has twice endorsed this plan, but the Supreme Court has had its doubts and sent the matter back for further review under the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment. Scalia was expected to be part of a five-vote majority ruling against UT on this one, but this is a special case. That is because a 4-4 vote here is not possible. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from deliberation (she had worked on the case prior to joining the court), so the conservatives may still prevail 4-3.

Labor Unions – New York Times

The clearest impact is likely to be in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, on the power of public unions. When the case was argued in January, it seemed clear that the court was headed toward a closely divided decision in which the conservative majority would rule that workers who chose not to join public unions could not be made to pay for the union’s collective bargaining work.

The likely outcome now is a 4-to-4 split that would leave in place a decision from the federal appeals court in California upholding the mandatory payments. That would be a major victory for the liberal justices and public unions.

Carolina voting – Charlotte News Observer:

North Carolina’s legal fight over its election map rapidly escalated Tuesday with the state asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case in hopes of protecting next month’s primary election.

Lawyers for Gov. Pat McCrory and other state officials filed the emergency request no more than an hour after a three-judge federal panel refused to delay its order from last week that found two congressional districts, including one that runs through parts of Charlotte, unconstitutional. The judges have ordered the state to redraw the boundary for the 12th and 1st Districts by the end of next week.

That’s about a month from the March 15 primary. State lawyers have argued that putting a new voting map in place at this late date will throw the election into disarray.