Washington Watch: Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch

A handful of blockbuster cases could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of its term in June, right in the middle of a national medical crisis and a volatile presidential election season. Here are five of the most high-profile cases—dealing with presidential power, abortion rights, immigration, LGBT rights, and gun rights.

Presidential power. Separation of powers and law enforcement investigative authority issues lie at the heart of three cases involving congressional and grand jury subpoenas for the financial records of President Trump, his family, and his businesses. Two consolidated cases—Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG—examine whether congressional committees are entitled to a president’s personal financial records and tax returns for a legislative purpose, even if the information uncovered may also reveal illegal conduct. The third case, Trump v. Vance, tests whether a custodian of the president’s personal financial records is barred by Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution from complying with a state grand-jury subpoena for the records, especially when longstanding Department of Justice policy disfavors the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president. The postponement of oral argument in March of these cases could potentially delay the issuance of decisions in these cases.

Abortion rights. June Medical Services LLC v. Gee centers on the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires a doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This issue is identical to one arising in a 2016 case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the Court struck down a Texas law on a 5-3 vote, finding that the law’s purpose was overly restrictive. Four years later, with the membership of the Supreme Court substantially changed, the Court may reflect a certain readiness to permit more regulation of abortion.

Immigration. In November 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in three consolidated cases challenging the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA). Those cases are Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. NAACP, and McAleenan v. Vidal. The Obama-era DACA policy has allowed over 700,000 undocumented young adults, known as “Dreamers,” who came to the United States as children, to apply for protection from deportation if they are either enrolled in school or have graduated, or are in the military or have been honorably discharged. The primary questions before the Court are whether the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and, if so, whether DHS’s decision to rescind DACA is lawful.

LGBT Rights. In a trio of consolidated cases, the Court will decide whether the prohibition against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The stakes are high; a 2018 Gallup poll estimated that 4.5 percent of American adults (11.3 million people) are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. In Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, two men were fired for being gay. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC, the employee was fired after informing her employer that she was transitioning from male to female.

Gun Rights. In the first case to be decided since 2008 to clarify gun rights protected by the Second Amendment, the Court could address unresolved issues involving the right to have guns outside the home and the standard that should be used in evaluating regulations of firearms. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York involves the constitutionality of New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside the city. However, the Court could dismiss the case as moot because New York City repealed the law and New York State passed a statute preventing such laws in the future.

These cases remind us once again that one of the most enduring impacts of presidential elections is their impact on the federal courts.

About the Author

Bruce Moyer is government relations counsel for the FBA. 

About the FBA

Founded in 1920, the Federal Bar Association is dedicated to the advancement of the science of jurisprudence and to promoting the welfare, interests, education, and professional development of all attorneys involved in federal law. Our more than 16,000 members run the gamut of federal practice: attorneys practicing in small to large legal firms, attorneys in corporations and federal agencies, and members of the judiciary. The FBA is the catalyst for communication between the bar and the bench, as well as the private and public sectors. Visit us at fedbar.org to learn more.