Environment and affirmative action mark new Supreme Court mandate

In the current term, the Supreme Court has had occasion to rule on several important cases. Dobbs v. Jackson was perhaps the most impactful, as it overturned Roe v. Wade, which asserted that abortion is an implicit constitutional right.

Among the other important decisions was Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which upheld a soccer coach's right to pray on the field. Shurtleff v. Boston concerned the City allowing multitude of flags to be displayed in front of City Hall while banning a Christian flag. The court's unanimous decision confirmed the right to free speech for Christians and non-Christians.

Environment

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court's decision limited the EPA's power to regulate the energy sector, asserting that it only has the ability to control emissions from individual power plants.

In many of the decisions, the conservative bloc, made up of nine judges, has prevailed over its progressive counterpart. The conservative justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Samiel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. The progressive bloc is made up of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated by Joe Biden to replace Stephen G. Breyer.

New cases

The Supreme Court faces many upcoming cases of great relevance. This Monday opens with Sackett v. EPA, which regards another instance of the agency's authority to regulate the country's resources.

In the aforementioned case, a couple wanted to build on an area of wetland they owned, but the EPA prevented it. As soon as they began pouring sand and gravel to prepare the building site, the EPA ordered the work to stop, citing that both materials were polluting the land in question.

Redistricting

This Tuesday, October 4, the hearing of Merrill v. Milligan begins. This case concerns Alabama's decision to redraw several congressional districts in 2021. A three-judge court ruled that the re-designation violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The State has appealed the decision, arguing that the court's interpretation of Section 2 would force the State to draw the lines based on racial criteria. The Supreme Court will decide whether it must prioritize the right of voters to form districts based on race or whether it will respect the decisions of the states in drawing their districts.

Positive discrimination

Two additional upcoming Supreme Court cases concern affirmative action policies: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College.

These decisions may be almost as impactful as Dobbs v. Jackson. The Supreme Court could rule against a previous decision (Grutter v. Bollinger) and proclaim that educational institutions should not consider race as a criterion for admissions.

The Supreme Court could find that Harvard College violated the rights of Asians by reducing their options for entry into the University. The University of North Carolina case concerns the whether or not universities have the right to reject an "anti-racist" criterion because doing so could cause harm to the quality of education that benefits the student body.

Another potentially important case is 303 creative v. Elenis. It refers to a graphic designer in Colorado who refused to provide his services for a same-sex wedding, citing his religious beliefs as justification. Colorado law prevents such discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.