Share

Policy: Law

Keep an eye on the Supreme Court this week for important decisions

By |
Beltway Confidential,Opinion,Philip Klein,Supreme Court,EPA,NLRB,Kathleen Sebelius,Law,HHS,Hobby Lobby,Pamela Harris

Some of the most important cases argued before the Supreme Court this term are still left undecided.

Opinions are set to be released on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and June 30, the last day of the term.

Here's a list of cases left to be decided that could have major impact on a wide range of issues, such as the relationship between the president and Congress, religious freedom, labor unions and privacy. For more detailed information, check out SCOTUSblog.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning - Concerns whether three of President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB were valid. Depending on how far the Supreme Court wants to go, a decision could set clear limits on how presidents use their recess appointment power, creating potentially huge ramifications for future nomination battles between the White House and Senate.

McCullen v. Coakley - Challenges a Massachusetts law placing limits on protests in front of abortion clinics.

Harris v. Quinn - Justices must rule on whether the state of Illinois can force its public employees to be members of a labor union. The case could potentially overturn the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education precedent, which allowed states to sign contracts that do just that. If overturned, that would allow potentially millions of public sector employees to opt out of their unions, which would be a major blow to organized labor.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA - Concerns the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants.

Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund – Concerns what stock investors must be able to show in lawsuits claiming they lost money due to misinformation.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores - Deals with whether the government can force employers to pay for health insurance that includes contraception coverage despite religious objections.

Loughrin v. U.S. – Concerns whether prosecutors must be able to prove intent to defraud a bank in order prove that somebody committed bank fraud.

Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoffer – Concerns plaintiffs' requirements in employee stock plan suits.

ABC v. Aereo – Concerns whether a service that allows subscribers to stream television broadcasts through the Internet violates the copyrights of broadcasters.

Riley v. California & U.S. v. Wurie – Concern whether police can examine data on arrested suspects' cell phones without warrants.

View article comments Leave a comment
Author:

Philip Klein

Commentary Editor
The Washington Examiner