The Supreme Court’s New Term Could Be One Of The Most Historic In Years

do not use

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court returned to the bench for a new term Monday with a number of cases on the docket that could affect the Nation for decades to come.

An article published in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday concedes that the court’s conservative justices — if they agree among themselves — have the opportunity to “shift the law to the right on abortion, contraception, religion and campaign funding.” Journalists writing for Buzzfeed, The Washington Post and The New York Times’ editorial board have expressed similar sentiments upon reviewing the list of cases the Nation’s highest court is slated to hear in the current term, which extends into summer.

Here’s a look at a few of the cases on the docket:

Campaign Finance

Today, the court is set to hear arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, a follow-up to the famous 2010 Citizens United case. In McCutcheon, the justices will decide whether aggregate limits on campaign contributions — that is, setting limits on the total amount a citizen can contribute over two years to everyone combined — is a violation of 1st Amendment free speech rights.

Scotusblog’s Lyle Denniston writes of the case: “By now, especially in the wake of the Citizens United decision nearly four years ago, no one can seriously doubt that the Court may once again decide to act boldly in declaring the current constitutional law of campaign finance. There are narrower ways to decide the McCutcheon case — perhaps the most inviting being to simply reaffirm Buckley v. Valeo based upon the concept of stare decisis. But there are abundant opportunities in this new case to go back to core understandings, and start over.”

Affirmative Action

Next, the court will take up the issue of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. In that case, the court will determine whether Michigan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in barring racial preferences in government programs and college admissions.

International Treaties And Americans’ Rights

In November, the court will shift focus to a case that could have major implications for Americans’ rights. The court will hear Bond v. U.S. on Nov. 5. The case concerns a woman poisoning her husband’s mistress, but posits whether Congress can pass Federal laws to fulfill a treaty when those laws would be unConstitutional if applied only domestically.

Talk Radio News Service summarizes the case as follows: “After discovering that her best friend and husband were having an affair, Carol Anne Bond attempted to poison her friend by spreading chemicals on her mailbox, car door and front door. This resulted in a federal prosecution under the Chemical Weapons Act. Bond now disputes Congress’s power to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty by creating a law to enforce it. She argues that the federal government lacks a plenary police power and that Congress’s authority to pass treaty-implementing legislation should not be an end run around its enumerated powers.”

Religious Freedoms

The court will also hear Greece v. Galloway during November, determining whether prayer before a town board meeting is protected under the 1st Amendment.

Legal analyst Ken Klukowski writes of the case on Scoutusblog: “Greece’s town board opens each meeting with a prayer. The town clerk invites every house of worship within city limits to volunteer, and also allows any citizen of any faith to volunteer. Prayer-givers are then scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis.

“The town is roughly ninety percent Christian. Aside from the predictably Christian majority of volunteers, they’ve had Jewish and Ba’hai prayers, and even a local Wiccan (i.e., witch/pagan). A local atheist even signed up and was scheduled to “pray,” but (understandably) withdrew at the last moment. No one is turned away.”


On Nov. 13, the justices will decide if the 4th Amendment requires a tenant to be present and to object to police entry if a co-tenant invites them to enter in the case of Fernandez v. California.

The Chicago-Kent College of Media Law’s Supreme Court Media website summarizes the case: “On October 12, 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man he later identified as Walter Fernandez. Lopez managed to call 911, and a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Detectives investigated a nearby alley that was a known gang location where two witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house just off the alley. The detectives knocked on the door of the indicated apartment, and Roxanne Rojas answered. The detectives requested to enter and conduct a search, at which point Walter Fernandez stepped forward and refused the detectives entry. They arrested Fernandez and took him into custody. Police officers secured the apartment, informed Rojas that Fernandez had been arrested in connection with a robbery, and requested to search the apartment. Rojas consented to the search verbally and in writing. During the search, officers found gang paraphernalia, a knife, and a gun.”

Another privacy-related issue likely to be heard in the current term involves law enforcement’s ability to perform warrantless searches of a suspect’s cellphone. Petitions for a writ of certiorari have been filed in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, asking the court to clear up incongruence between Federal appellate courts and State supreme courts on whether cellphones are like ordinary containers, allowing police to review the digital contents without a warrant.

Presidential Power

The Supreme Court will likely hear NLRB v. Noel Canning in January, determining whether President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without Senate approval, as one Senator held a nominal session to prevent the action, was Constitutional. If the decision is made that the President’s action doesn’t pass Constitutional muster, all NLRB actions over the past two years would be illegal and void.

Other cases of note:

  • McCullen v. Coakley, in which anti-abortion protesters have challenged a Massachusetts law requiring a 35-foot “buffer zone” around healthcare clinics.
  • Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, which challenges the Constitutionality of an Oklahoma law requiring doctors to use abortion-inducing drugs precisely as the Food and Drug Administration approved more than a decade ago.
  • DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, determining whether the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated when an American court claims jurisdiction over matters involving a foreign corporation.
Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Deerinwater

    Guide our leadership through this oh Lord. I pray.

    • FreedomFighter

      Our Leadership
      all pirates and they dont do anything…watch them in action.

      Laus DeoSemper FI

  • Vigilant

    “An article published in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday concedes that the court’s conservative justices — if they agree among themselves — have the opportunity to “shift the law to the right on abortion, contraception, religion and campaign funding.”

    How so? Conservative justices are outnumbered by the activists.

    Four justices are activist, three are Conservative and two are swing votes. Prior to the decision on ACA it was reliably 4-4-1, but Roberts’ changed that by siding with the activist traitors.

  • Guest

    Oh please, I am sure if John Roberts does not cave in and go liberal, some other so-called ”conservative” on the bench will. After all, we can thank Roberts for siding with the liberals, and ruling that ObamaCare was Constitutional under the guise of a ”tax”. I am sure that he-or any other judge-can find even the Bill Of Rights unconstitutional with the slippery slope the U.S. is sliding down.

  • Tim LaBard

    You forgot Eric “Fast and Furious, ‘Umm, I don’t know, Umm, I can’t recall..'” Holder. too. What a Department of Injustice we have.

  • KeepItPure

    For every opinion by Scotus, The Constitution of The United States of America should be sitting in front of each judge. Also, every American should memorize the Preamble and be able to recite it when called on to take a stand against those who would negate it.