Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2016 term
- Justices
- CASES BY TERM
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
- All earlier cases
- HISTORY OF THE COURT
- Recent vacancies
During the 2016-2017 term, the United States Supreme Court released decisions in major cases involving the constitutional rights of religious organizations, congressional redistricting, free speech rights, and racial bias in juries.
The term's major cases can be viewed below. Information about all of the cases heard during the 2016-2017 term is available here.
To read about major cases heard in other terms, click on the following links: 2013, 2014, and 2015. Click here for information about all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court in the 2017-2018 term.
A new justice
In otherwise relatively quiet term, much of the publicity about the court concerned the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 and the vacancy Scalia left on the court. At the beginning of the court's October 2016 term, Scalia's seat remained vacant, leaving the court with eight justices.
On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated then-Judge Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia. Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court on a recorded 54-45 vote of the Senate on Friday, April 7, 2017, and he received his commission on Monday, April 10, 2017.[1] Gorsuch participated in hearing arguments for 14 of the term's cases.
Supreme Court scholars have developed measures of the justices' political ideologies, such as the Segal-Cover score. The Segal-Cover score, which was first presented in a 1989 paper by State University of New York-Stony Brook professors Jeffrey Segal and Albert Cover, is based on an analysis of newspaper editorials published between the time of each justice's nomination to the Supreme Court and his or her confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Scores range from 0, which is the most conservative, to 100, which is the most liberal.[2]
Updated Segal-Cover scores were included in the November 1, 2017, version of The Supreme Court Justices Database, a project led by Washington University in St. Louis professors Lee Epstein and Nancy Staudt and Emory University professor Thomas Walker.[3] The November 2017 scores for the justices appear below from most liberal to most conservative.
| Political ideology of Supreme Court justices (November 2017)[3] | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sotomayor: 78 | Kagan: 73 | Ginsburg: 68 | Breyer: 47.5 | Kennedy: 36.5 | Thomas: 16 | Roberts: 12 | Gorsuch: 11 | Alito: 10 | |
2016-2017 Major cases
| Grants for religious organizations: Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer | |
|---|---|
|
Background: Trinity Lutheran Church operates a licensed preschool and daycare center called The Learning Center. The Learning Center has an open admissions policy but, as a ministry of the church and as part of its daily programs, provides religious instruction from a Christian worldview. The Learning Center applied for a grant through a solid waste management program operated by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. At the time of the filing, the program offered grants for qualifying organizations to purchase recycled tires in order to resurface playgrounds. The state denied the center's application, citing a provision of the Missouri Constitution that prohibits public money to be given in support of a church. Trinity Lutheran claimed that denying funds for a neutral, secular purpose on the basis of religion was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Decision: In a 7 - 2 decision, the court agreed that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources violated Trinity Lutheran Church's First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion by denying the church a public benefit on account of the church's religious status. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Stephen Breyer authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch wrote an opinion concurring in part that was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. |
| Redistricting: Cooper v. Harris | |
|---|---|
|
Background: Sometime after the 2010 census, North Carolina set out to draw a legislative boundary map for its Congressional delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. A plan was subsequently approved by the General Assembly of North Carolina and the governor, Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) On November 3, 2011, opponents of the congressional district map approved by the state legislature filed suit.[5] The challengers argued that lawmakers had drawn the map to unconstitutionally limit the power of black voters. On February 5, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that two of the state's 13 congressional districts, District 1 and District 12, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander. The court determined that state lawmakers had placed disproportionately large numbers of black voters in these two districts, thereby diluting the impact of their votes. The state appealed.
Decision: Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court. The court affirmed the judgment of the Middle District of North Carolina that race unconstitutionally influenced the General Assembly of North Carolina's drawing of the geographic boundaries of both North Carolina's 1st Congressional District (CD-1) and North Carolina's 12th Congressional District (CD-12), in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The court unanimously affirmed the Middle District's judgment as to CD-1. Five justices — Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — affirmed the judgment of the Middle District as to CD-12. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion for himself in the case. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment in part (as to CD-1) and dissenting in part (as to CD-12) which was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[6] |
| Trademarks and free speech: Matal v. Tam | |
|---|---|
|
Background: Simon Shiao Tam, the founder of a rock band called THE SLANTS, attempted to register the band's name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for trademark protection. The PTO refused, citing a provision under the Lanham Act, a federal trademark law, that prohibits extending trademark protection for anyone registering scandalous, immoral, or disparaging marks. Tam filed suit, alleging that the PTO's refusal violated his free speech rights. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the PTO's claim, holding that the provision of the Lanham Act in question, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), was unconstitutional.
Decision: On June 19, 2017, in a judgment for the court announced by Justice Samuel Alito, the court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer, joined Justice Alito's opinion in full. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment, and he was joined in this opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan also joined portions of Justice Alito's opinion. Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion for himself concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. All eight sitting justices when the case was argued agreed with the principal holding to affirm the Federal Circuit. The court held that the contested provision of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional. The court held that the provision unconstitutionally infringed on the free speech rights of trademark seekers as provided by the First Amendment.[6] |
| Immigration law and gender discrimination: Sessions v. Morales-Santana | |
|---|---|
|
Background: The U.S. government sought to deport Luis Ramon Morales-Santana pursuant to his multiple felony convictions. Morales-Santana argued that he was a U.S. citizen and could not be deported. He claimed that he had derivative citizenship through his biological father, a U.S. citizen at the time of Morales-Santana's birth, and that the statutory provisions which the government believed denied recognition of his citizenship claim violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the law. In this case, the court addressed provisions of immigration law, codified under 8 U.S.C. §1409, which set different requirements for children born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and a non-citizen parent to acquire U.S. citizenship. Under the rules, a child born abroad to an unwed citizen mother and non-citizen father had citizenship at birth so long as the mother was present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year at some point prior to the child's birth. However, a child born abroad to an unwed citizen father and non-citizen mother had citizenship at birth only if the father was present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for a period or periods totaling at least ten years, with at least five of those years occurring after the age of fourteen. The law was later changed to a five-year requirement, not ten years.
Decision: The court held that the gender-based variations violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. However, as the court was not able to implement a new physical-presence rule governing all instances, the court noted that "Congress may address the issue and settle on a uniform prescription that neither favors nor disadvantages any person on the basis of gender." In the interim, the court said that the current five-year rule for children born to unwed U.S.-citizen fathers should also apply to children of unwed U.S.-citizen mothers. |
| Racial bias and the Sixth Amendment: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado | |
|---|---|
|
Background: In this case, petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez claimed his guilty verdict was tainted by a juror's racial bias, a view which was supported in affidavits provided by two other jurors in the case. A rule of evidence in Colorado, Rule 606(b), prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding statements made in jury deliberations. Pena-Rodriguez claimed this rule could not be used to prohibit evidence of racial bias because to do so violated his right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Decision: Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court for a five-justice majority. After a lengthy and detailed review of the court's jurisprudence in the areas of race, juries, and no-impeachment rules, Justice Kennedy announced that a Sixth Amendment inquiry is required when evidence of explicit racial animus by a juror(s) is presented post-conviction. Kennedy wrote, "Where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee." |
| Qualified immunity and post-September 11 detentions: Ziglar v. Abbasi | |
|---|---|
|
Background: In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks committed on September 11, 2001, various federal and state authorities coordinated investigation and detention efforts regarding suspected terrorists. In this case, eight men who were never involved in any illegal activities but were detained during post-September 11 investigations for a period of three to eight months filed a class action lawsuit against former INS Commissioner James Ziglar for violations of their constitutional rights. They alleged the right to sue under a Supreme Court case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which provided for the right to sue for constitutional deprivations committed by federal officers. Ziglar moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit, that Bivens did not cover the plaintiffs' claims, and that the plaintiffs had failed to state an adequate claim.
Decision: In an opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court held that it could not authorize an action for implied damages against former federal officials under the court's precedent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics because to do so would extend Bivens to a new context. Instead, the court held, such damages must flow from a specific remedy authorized by Congress and not the courts. The court further held that the federal officials were eligible for qualified immunity because, under federal law, the federal officials would not have known with sufficient certainty that federal law prohibited either the consultations with state officials or the resulting policies that prompted the lawsuit. The court sent the case back to the Second Circuit to determine if prisoner abuse claims made against a state defendant, Dennis Hasty, could proceed once that court conducted a required analysis. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[6] |
See also
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2015
- What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split?
- Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia
- 2016 presidential candidates on the death of Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court vacancy
- Members of Congress on the death of Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court vacancy
- Merrick Garland
- 2016 presidential candidates on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland
- Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court
- Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2014 term
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Politico, "Gorsuch confirmation hearing set for March 20," February 16, 2017
- ↑ American Political Science Review, "Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices," June 1989
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Washington University in St. Louis, "The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database," November 1, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, January 15, 2016 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "questions" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ ABC News, "Supreme Court Orders Review of North Carolina Redistricting," April 20, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Roy Cooper, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. David Harris, et al., decided May 22, 2017 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, April 4, 2016
