The Academy Awards are coming up on Feb. 22. But what really needs an awards ceremony is this blockbuster Supreme Court term. The Supreme Court granted certiorari for monumental cases that will magnanimously change today’s society. I selected the nominees for “Best Case.” I nominated the cases according to their issues and according to the impact that the decision will make on Americans.
1. DeBoer v. Snyder, Obergefell v. Hodges, Bourke v. Beshear, Tanco v. Haslam, or the same-sex marriage cases:
The Issues: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” (SCOTUSblog).
Basically, the Court will decide whether or not same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right.
Background: In June 2013, the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a 5-4 decision that “states have the authority to define marital relations and that DOMA goes against legislative and historical precedent by undermining that authority” (Windsor v. United States, Oyez). The question of same-sex marriage in the states was not the issue in Windsor. However, in the past few years, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the states has come under question. There are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court tends to grant certiorari for cases in which there is a disagreement among the U.S. Courts of Appeals. For instance, in the same-sex marriage case, five Courts of Appeals struck down bans on gay marriage, while the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the bans. The Sixth Circuit hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
The Supreme Court, naturally, wants to end the disagreements among the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
Dates: To be determined. If you’re planning on attending the oral arguments, you may have to line up in front of the Supreme Court days in advance.
2. *Elonis v. United States, or the online “true threats” case:
The Issue: Does a speaker have to have the intent to carry out a true threat in order to be convicted of making a true threat? Or does the recipient only have to be afraid in order for the speaker to be convicted? The case involves the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech.
Here’s the story about Anthony Elonis and his Facebook posts. In 2010, Mr. Elonis was convicted on four counts for writing threatening posts on his Facebook page. The posts targeted his wife, local law enforcement, an elementary school, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent. Mr. Elonis, 31, claims that his Facebook posts were rap lyrics that served as an outlet for him to let off steam during a difficult time in his life. At the time of his posts, Mr. Elonis was fired from his job and Mr. Elonis’ wife left him after seven years of marriage, taking their two young children with her. Mr. Elonis was sentenced to 44 months in prison and three years of probation.
The Court’s decision, which will most likely come out this summer, will set a precedent for First Amendment protections on social media sites.
Dates: This case was argued on December 1, 2014.
3. *Zivotofsky v. Kerry, or the Israeli passport case:
The Issue: Does Congress have the power to pass a law requiring the State Department to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in “Jerusalem” as born in “Israel” on a U.S. passport, or would the law infringe on presidential recognition power? (C-SPAN, November 4, 2014).
Basically, this case involves the separation of powers.
Manachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem in 2002 to parents who are citizens of the United States (Oyez). When he was born, his parents requested for his passport to say “Israel” as the place of birth, rather than “Jerusalem.” But, the State Department refused to do so. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “held that the section goes beyond the scope of Congress’s passport power to affect United States foreign policy, which is a realm the Constitution reserves for the executive branch” (Oyez).
So, the Court is not deciding whether or not to recognize Jerusalem as a part of Israel. Rather, the Court is figuring out Legislative-Executive Branch relations when it comes to recognizing foreign states on a passport.
This case was argued on November 3, 2014. The justices will most likely release the decision for this case in the summer.
4. King v. Burwell, or the Affordable Care Act case:
The Issue: “Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (SCOTUSBlog).
The dispute over the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” continues in this case. Recall in June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Affordable Care Act was valid under the Taxing Clause, but not valid under the Commerce Clause (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius). In King v. Burwell, the case tests “whether lower-income individuals can get federal subsidies to help them afford health insurance in the thirty-four states where an Affordable Care Act insurance marketplace is run by the federal, rather than a state, government” (Denniston, SCOTUSblog, December 29, 2014). The Court will essentially look at four words in the Affordable Care Act—“established by the State”—to decide whether or not federal government marketplaces are valid if the state does not open their own exchanges.
Tom Goldstein wrote in SCOTUSblog, “But if a state refuses, the federal government will provide the exchange. The law then provides tax credits for people who need financial assistance. Without the subsidy, many people will not be subject to the ‘individual mandate’ to buy insurance” (SCOTUSblog, July 23, 2014).
Dates: March 4, 2015. If you’re planning on attending the oral argument, you may have to line up in front of the Supreme Court days in advance.
*I attended the oral argument for the case.