Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split?

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See: Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview

February 1, 2017

The unexpected death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, created the possibility that the court would issue numerous 4-4 decisions during the 2015-2016 term. However, the court was mostly able to avoid deadlocking, issuing just four 4-4 ties in the 81 decisions delivered during the term. Two of the 4-4 splits were in major cases—Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association and United States v. Texas.[1] In those cases, the lower court's ruling was upheld.

Before Justice Scalia's death, the last time the court issued a 4-4 ruling was in the 2010 copyright infringement case, Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, in which Justice Elena Kagan recused herself.[2]

The court's 2016-2017 cases

See: Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017

The court's 2015-2016 major cases

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term.

The following major cases were decided by eight justices after Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

Redistricting: Evenwel v. Abbott
In Evenwel v. Abbott the court addressed the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger challenged the state senate map drawn by the 2013 Texas State Legislature. They argued that the map, "while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly malapportioned voters," and that district populations should take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts instead of total population counts. The court addressed "whether the 'one-person, one-vote' principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote."[3]

  • The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes.[4]

Agency shop labor union dues: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the court addressed the constitutionality of requiring public employees to pay agency shop fees to public-sector unions. Unions are required to represent all public employees, whether an employee is a member of the union or not. In Abood v. Detroit Education Association, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of an employee's First Amendment rights to be required to pay an agency shop fee. These fees compensate the union for any collective bargaining, contract administration or grievance adjustment purposes done on behalf of the employees; the fees are equal to the amount of union dues. Unions are not allowed to charge employees for any work performed that is considered political in nature.

A group of California teachers argued that they should not have to pay agency fees because it is a violation of their First Amendment right. The court considered whether the fees were a violation and if having to opt out of paying the union for the political activities that they engage in annually, rather than opting in was a violation of the First Amendment.[5]

Redistricting: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
In Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court addressed the constitutionality of the legislative districts created by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). In 2012, the AIRC created legislative districts that overpopulated 16 Republican districts and underpopulated 11 Democratic districts. A group of Republican voters from Arizona argued that their votes were diluted by the AIRC in order to give the Democratic Party an advantage, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The AIRC "argued that the population deviations were the result of attempts to comply with the Voting Rights Act" and get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice, according to Oyez.org. The petitioners argued that this rationale for unequally populating legislative districts was wrong because neither the Voting Rights Act nor the Justice Department required or had the authority to allow the commission to violate the "one person, one vote" principle.[7][8]

  • On April 20, 2016, the justices delivered a unanimous ruling in which they found that Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act.[9]

ACA's birth-control mandate: Zubik v. Burwell
In Zubik v. Burwell, the court considered whether the exemption process created for religious nonprofits, including charities, schools, colleges, and hospitals, to opt out of the requirement that employers provide their employees with access to free birth-control under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

  • In a per curiam decision issued on May 15, 2016, the court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case back down for further consideration.[10]

Racial discrimination in death penalty sentencing: Foster v. Chatman
In Foster v. Chatman, the court reviewed whether the Georgia Supreme Court failed to recognize racial discrimination in the jury selection for Timothy Tyrone Foster's death penalty sentencing case. In 1986, Foster, a black man who was 18 years old at the time, strangled Queen Madge White, an elderly white woman, to death after sexually molesting her. Foster was convicted of murder and robbery, and he was sentenced to death by an all-white jury. Foster argued that the prosecution deliberately chose not to pick black jurors during his trial, which is unlawful under Batson v. Kentucky. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor could not use peremptory challenge to exclude jurors because of their race.[11]

  • In an 7-1 ruling delivered on May 23, 2016, the court reversed the order of the Georgia Supreme Court and remanded the case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who authored the opinion of the court, wrote, "[T]he focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury. ... The State’s new argument today does not dissuade us from the conclusion that its prosecutors were motivated in substantial part by race when they struck Garrett and Hood from the jury 30 years ago. Two peremptory strikes on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution allows." The ruling did not vacate Foster's conviction for the murder of Queen Madge White, but it allowed Foster to argue for a new trial.[12]

Immigration: United States v. Texas
In United States v. Texas, the court addressed whether President Barack Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions issued in November 2014 could be implemented. The programs, Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), proposed allowing individuals living in the country illegally to avoid deportation and obtain work permits, if they met certain criteria.[13][14][15]

  • In a 4-4 per curiam decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court upheld the lower court's ruling blocking the executive actions. The full opinion read: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."[16] The case will return to the lower court, but it is highly unlikely that DACA will be expanded and DAPA will be implemented.[17]

Racial preference in college admissions: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the court considered the use of race in college admissions. In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. She then sued the university, arguing that because UT-Austin considers race when choosing applicants, her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection was violated. In 2013, the court heard her case, and Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in his opinion that a university must demonstrate that its consideration of race in admissions is narrowly tailored and necessary to obtain diversity.[18] In July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Fisher petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again.

According to Lisa Soronen of the National Conference of State Legislatures, "Per Texas’s Top Ten Percent Plan, the top 10 percent of Texas high school graduates are automatically admitted to UT Austin, which fills about 80 percent of the class. Unless an applicant has an 'exceptionally high academic Index,' he or she will be evaluated through a holistic review where race is one of a number of factors."[19] Fisher argued that the appeals court did not apply "strict scrutiny" when evaluating UT-Austin's admissions policy.[20]

  • In a 4-3 decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court held that the university’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; however, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stipulated that "a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review ... The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies."[21] Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, so seven justices decided the case, which prevented a 4-4 split decision.

Abortion clinic regulations: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the court addressed what constitutes an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion. A group of women's healthcare facilities and abortion doctors challenged two provisions of Texas House Bill 2. The first provision required doctors who perform abortions to have hospital-admitting privileges at a facility within 30 miles of where an abortion is performed, and the second required abortion facilities to meet the same requirements as outpatient surgery centers.[22]

  • In a 5-3 decision delivered on June 27, 2016, the court reversed and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, striking down Texas' HB 2. Justice Stephen Breyer, who delivered the opinion of the court, wrote, "We agree with the District Court that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."[23]

See also


External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ The Hill, "Supreme Court limps to finish," accessed June 27, 2016
  2. ↑ Oyez.org, "Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A.," accessed February 17, 2016
  3. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed September 7, 2015
  4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  5. ↑ Americanbar.org, "Brief for Petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al.," accessed September 22, 2015
  6. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association et al.," accessed April 7, 2016
  7. ↑ Oyez.org, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," accessed September 21, 2015
  8. ↑ AmericanBar.org, "Brief for Appellants Wesley W. Harris, et al.," accessed September 23, 2015
  9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Zubik v. Burwell," May 15, 2016
  11. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Batson v. Kentucky," accessed October 1, 2015
  12. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Foster v. Chatman," accessed June 2, 2016
  13. ↑ PBS, "Watch Obama’s full immigration speech," accessed February 2, 2016
  14. ↑ The Hill, "Judge blocks Obama order on immigration," accessed February 7, 2016
  15. ↑ The New York Times, "Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans," accessed February 7, 2016
  16. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "U.S. v. Texas," accessed June 23, 2016
  17. ↑ CNN, "Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan," accessed July 5, 2016
  18. ↑ Supreme.Justia.com, "Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin," accessed October 3, 2015
  19. ↑ NCSL.org, "Affirmative Action at Austin: Take 2," accessed September 8, 2015
  20. ↑ AmericanBar.org, "Brief for Petitioner Abigail Noel Fisher," accessed October 3, 2015
  21. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, decided June 23, 2016
  22. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Brief in Opposition," accessed November 14, 2015
  23. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt," June 27, 2016
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=What_happens_to_this_term%27s_major_SCOTUS_cases_in_a_4-4_split&oldid=7967583"