At least four legal disputes in the conservative-led Supreme Court’s upcoming term are expected to offer the justices the opportunity to overturn decades-old precedents.
The disputes involve the president’s authority to remove agency heads, prayer over a school loudspeaker, same-sex marriage and the Voting Rights Act. One of the disputes has been granted a review by the court and is scheduled for oral arguments in October; the others could be heard before next spring.
Court watchers say the justices will likely rule to restrict some of the precedents if they do not outright overturn them.
“With this court, you just can’t tell,” said Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow at People For the American Way. “It’s always a hard guess, but I think this court is willing to entertain a lot of this.”
“The [Chief Justice John G.] Roberts [Jr.] Court has been hesitant to overrule cases outright. There are a few exceptions, such as Dobbs and Loper Bright. But the Court is more likely to chip away at precedents,” said Josh Blackman, professor at South Texas College of Law.
Mr. Blackman referred to two precedent-busting court decisions of the past three years: In 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the justices returned jurisdiction over abortion to the states, overturning 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that established a national right to the procedure.
In 2024’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the court overturned the so-called Chevron deference policy, under which judges deferred to agencies’ interpretations of federal law where Congress was ambiguous since 1984. The Loper Bright case dealt with fishermen challenging a 2020 federal rule on payments for monitoring their catch.
Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act
The justices have agreed to hear a dispute out of Louisiana over its legislative map, which challengers say was drawn unlawfully to create two majority-Black districts.
The case could challenge a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was enacted to redress centuries of political exclusion and has pushed states to maximize minorities’ voting power.
The high court heard the case last year but did not issue a decision; the justices said they would rehear the case when the new term begins.
The map, adopted by the state ahead of the 2024 elections, carves out two of Louisiana’s six congressional districts as majority Black. The result is that the state shifted from a 5-1 Republican-majority congressional delegation to a 4-2 GOP-led delegation.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination in voting practices on the basis of race, color or language.
The case will be argued Oct. 15.
Prayer over loudspeaker
The court was asked in June to extend the right to pray over a school loudspeaker ahead of a sporting event in a dispute out of Florida that could upend 2000’s Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe decision, which found student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games unconstitutional.
The Cambridge Christian School in Tampa has asked the court to hear its challenge to the Santa Fe Independent precedent, which held that student-led prayer over a loudspeaker before a game violated the Establishment Clause, which restricts the government from endorsing a religion.
The private school argues that its First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion was violated when school representatives weren’t allowed to pray over a loudspeaker ahead of its title game. The school was playing a fellow Christian school, and both sought to engage in the pregame prayer.
It would take four justices to vote in favor of hearing the case for oral arguments to be scheduled. They are expected to discuss the case during a private conference on Sept. 29.
Same-sex marriage
Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign off on same-sex marriage licenses in 2014, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn 2015’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriages nationwide.
Her attorneys asked the justices last month in a petition to analyze the “legal fiction of substantive due process” in her case.
Conservatives have attacked the doctrine of substantive due process, saying it creates certain rights not explicitly delineated in the Constitution. The doctrine was used for decades to support Roe v. Wade.
It would take four justices to vote in favor of hearing Ms. Davis’ request for oral arguments to be granted.
Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, says it’s unlikely the court will take up the case.
“There are not five votes to overturn Obergefell or even four to reconsider it — and the Court certainly wouldn’t use Kim Davis’ as a vehicle for doing so even if those practicalities were different,” Mr. Shapiro said.
President firing agency heads
Court watchers say they believe the justices have an appetite to overturn 1935’s Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a precedent that limits the president’s authority to fire officials at independent agencies.
In a recent string of emergency orders, the court’s conservative majority already has allowed President Trump to fire agency heads at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
It’s expected that a case will come before the court during the upcoming term that could effectively overrule Humphrey once and for all.
