Major cases Supreme Court is set to decide

The Supreme Court this spring is deciding major cases on affirmative action in college admissions, student loan debt forgiveness, whether social media companies can be held liable for content others post on their platforms, and much more.

Decisions are likely to be announced each week until the court finishes its work in late June or early July.

Student loan forgiveness

Can the president forgive student loans on a massive scale?

Biden v. Nebraska, Department of Education v. Brown

Background: The justices are deciding whether the Biden administration has the authority to eliminate up to $10,000 of student debt for borrowers earning up to $125,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples).

Why it matters: The Biden plan, created to help people economically during the coronavirus pandemic, would cost more than $400 billion and impact more than 40 million borrowers, about half of whom would see their debt erased.

Oral arguments: Conservatives questioned whether the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 authorized such a far-reaching proposal without more direct involvement from Congress, which controls federal spending.

Affirmative action in college admissions

Can colleges use race as a factor in admissions?

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

Background: The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled colleges and universities may use race as a factor in building diverse student bodies. Conservatives on the court, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, have long questioned the legality of racial preferences.

Why it matters: Colleges say minority admissions, particularly at selective institutions, would drop significantly if race is not at least considered.

Oral arguments: Conservative justices seemed open to ending decades of precedent allowing race-conscious admission decisions.

Federal election laws, redistricting

Who has final say in congressional redistricting, election rules?

Moore v. Harper

Background: This case examines whether the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to draw congressional districts and set rules for federal elections without any oversight from state courts (though Congress could still intervene). That is the “independent state legislature theory” advanced by North Carolina’s Republican legislative leaders.

Why it matters: Taking state courts out of the equation would be a major shift in election law and grant extensive power to legislators – even if their plans create extremely partisan congressional maps and violate voter protections enshrined in state constitutions.

Oral arguments: A majority of justices seemed reluctant to accept the broad argument from the North Carolina’s GOP lawmakers. But some said they thought state courts could be restrained from becoming too big a player in election decisions.

Race and congressional districts

What role should race play when drawing congressional districts?

Merrill v. Milligan

Background: The justices must decide whether Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act by not creating a second congressional district, out of seven in the state, where Black voters make up a large enough share of the electorate to have a clear chance to determine who is elected.

Alabama, where about 27% of the electorate is Black, says such “racial gerrymandering” would violate traditional redistricting guidelines and the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Why it matters: Relieving states of the requirement that they take race into account when redistricting would be a major change in U.S. election law, and could lead to a decline in the number of non-white lawmakers in Congress.

Oral arguments: It appeared a majority of the court might not embrace Alabama’s request for a broad reinterpretation of how the law is enforced, and that a narrower compromise was a possibility.

Liability of Big Tech

Can social media companies be held liable for terrorist content posted on their platforms?

Gonzales v. Google, Twitter v. Taamneh

Background: The justices are weighing the limits of the grant of immunity that Congress gives internet companies for lawsuits regarding content from others posted on the companies’ platforms.

Why it matters: Families of terror victims say their children’s killers were aided by social media content related to the terrorist cause. Changing the immunity granted in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would rock the foundations of internet law. But critics say the increasing prevalence of such content requires more regulation, and argue the law does not protect tech firms from their own choices about what to promote.

Oral arguments: Justices seemed reluctant to impose substantial changes in the law protecting social platforms from litigation.

Online messages and threats

When does the First Amendment protect threatening speech?

Counterman v. Colorado

Background: A singer-songwriter was terrorized by online messages from a man she never met. The justices are weighing whether, to find the sender or speaker of such messages criminally liable, prosecutors must prove that the person intended to threaten the recipient.

Why it matters: With online threats and angry speech proliferating in American society, the court’s decision will shape who can be prosecuted for threats.

Oral argument: Both conservative and liberal justices seemed at least somewhat sympathetic to arguments by the lawyer from the man convicted of stalking the singer-songwriter. They said they did not want to criminalize misunderstanding, but also did not want to make it harder for people to take civil action against stalkers, or get protective orders.

Clean Water Act: protecting wetlands

Which areas are protected by the Clean Water Act?

Sackett v. EPA

Background: The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that wetlands are covered by the federal Clean Water Act if they have a “significant nexus” to regulated waters. Property rights and business groups have tried for years to get the court to reconsider. They want to limit regulation to wetlands and other areas directly connected to “navigable waters” – i.e. a stream, river or lake you could travel through on a boat.

Why it matters: Changing the definition could reduce by about half the wetlands and streams protected from destruction and pollution by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be far easier to secure building permits for projects on or near lands that are no longer covered by the landmark Clean Water Act.

Oral arguments: Several of the court’s conservative justices expressed concern about the unpredictability and broad reach of the act, while liberal justices seemed to seek a compromise that would retain the government’s authority to regulate wetlands adjacent to lakes, rivers and other waterways.

Immigration and deportation

How broad are the president’s powers to decide which undocumented immigrants to detain?

United States v. Texas

Background: The attorneys general of Texas and other red states sued over the Biden administration’s decision to focus deportation efforts on recent border crossers and immigrants who pose a threat to public safety. The states say the policy conflicts with federal law.

Why it matters: The White House, which has always enjoyed wide latitude on how to enforce immigration laws, says Congress has not appropriated enough money for the Department of Homeland Security to seek the removal of everyone who is in this country illegally. A decision in favor of the states could overwhelm the agency’s budget and its detention facilities. But states say they are impacted by having more migrants remain.

Oral argument: The justices appeared conflicted, and uncertain how the administration could comply with a ruling in support of the states.

Free speech and gay wedding websites

Does the 1st Amendment protect business owners who don’t want to make wedding websites for same-sex couples?

Creative LLC v. Elanis

Background: Denver-based website designer Lori Smith says her religious belief is that marriage is only between a woman and a man, and she should not have to provide create speech that conflicts with that belief. The state of Colorado requires businesses to offer the same services to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Why it matters: This showdown over state public accommodation laws could impact other business owners who want to avoid transactions that violate their religious beliefs. Critics of Smith’s position have compared it to racial discrimination, which courts would not allow. But Smith says she wants to avoid celebrating same-sex marriages, not doing business with people who are gay.

Oral argument: The court’s conservatives seemed sympathetic to Smith, an evangelical Christian, during arguments that included hypotheticals about mall Santas who are Black, interracial marriage and “reeducation programs” for violating public-accommodation laws.

Native American adoptions

Is a law prioritizing adoptions of Native American children by other Native Americans constitutional?

Haaland v. Brackeen

Background: Tribal leaders say the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed to rectify years of government misdeeds involving the removal of children from Native American families, and is essential to the independence of the tribes. But critics say the law requires officials to put aside the traditional standard of doing what is best for the child, and relies on racial discrimination in ways the Constitution does not allow.

Why it matters: The ruling will impact sensitive decisions about whether Native children are inherently better off with relatives or other tribal members and could affect other aspects of Native American life.

Oral argument: It did not appear that a majority of justices are content to let the law stand as is.

Time off for the Sabbath

How must employers accommodate religious workers who ask for time off to observe the Sabbath?

Groff v. DeJoy

Background: A former part-time mail carrier who is an evangelical Christian sued the U.S. Postal Service over having to work on Sundays to deliver Amazon packages. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says employers must reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious observances as long as doing so does not impose an “undue hardship” on the business or an employee’s co-workers. Justices are deciding what that standard should be.

Why it matters: Businesses may have to be more flexible in accommodating employees – or workers who are religiously observant may find more jobs unpalatable for them.

Oral argument: Previously, the court has said anything more than a minor inconvenience would meet the definition of “undue hardship.” In April, a majority of the Supreme Court expressed interest in finding a compromise that balances religious rights in the workplace with the burden they might impose on employers and co-workers.