The Supreme Court is about to start a new term with Trump looming over some major cases

President
Donald Trump applauds new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
during his public swearing-in ceremony at the White House on
April 10, 2017.

AP
Photo/Evan Vucci

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Trump administration’s ability to win
over the U.S. Supreme Court will be put to the test when the nine
justices begin their new term on Monday with major cases awaiting
on voting rights, religious liberty, union funding and
class-action suits.

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department already has flipped
the government’s position in some important cases, reversing the stance
taken under Democratic former President Barack Obama, and could
have a receptive audience on the court, whose term runs through
June.

The addition of Trump’s appointee Neil Gorsuch in April restored
the court’s 5-4 conservative majority, as the new justice
prepares to begin his first full term.

The administration has backed companies against employees and
supported voting laws that critics say could prevent eligible
people from casting ballots.

It also has reversed the Obama administration’s stance in support
of protections for gay workers under federal law, an issue that
could reach the court within weeks.

The Supreme Court generally gives special deference to the views
of the U.S. solicitor general, the federal government’s top
lawyer. Trump’s appointee Noel Francisco holds the job. But some
justices may look dimly upon the government abruptly changing its
position in cases.

Former Justice Department lawyer Pratik Shah said a flip-flop can
provide an opening for justices sympathetic to the view of the
prior administration, who can ask: “What in the law has changed
to warrant a different view?”

The court’s oldest justice, 84-year-old liberal Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, has called the upcoming term “momentous” owing to the
importance of the cases on the docket.

On Tuesday, the term’s second day, the justices are due to hear a
case that could help shape U.S. elections for decades involving
the long-standing practice of a majority party manipulating
electoral boundaries for future elections to try to cement their
hold on power.

Wisconsin is appealing a lower-court ruling that the way the
Republican-led legislature redrew boundaries following the 2010
census was so far-reaching in its bid to marginalize Democratic
voters that it violated the Constitution.

In a case expected to be argued in December involving free
speech, religious liberty and gay rights, the justices will weigh
whether a Denver-area baker who cited his Christian beliefs in
refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple can be penalized
for violating a Colorado anti-discrimination law.

The new administration has backed the baker, infuriating groups
that support gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual rights.

“President Trump said on the campaign trail that he’s an advocate
for LGBT people, but actions speak much louder than words,” said
James Esseks, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who works
on gay rights issues.

The Supreme Court on Monday canceled arguments that had been
scheduled for Oct. 10 in what would have been the biggest case of
the term, whether Trump’s ban on people entering the United
States from several Muslim-majority countries amounted to
unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims. The action came
after a temporary ban expired and the administration announced a
new set of restrictions.

Pool/Getty
Images

‘One-two punch’

A case on the first day of the term on Monday presents a rarity,
with the administration facing off against one of the federal
government’s own agencies, the National Labor Relations Board.

“That will be a first for me in the nearly 25 years I have served
on the court,” Ginsburg said at a Georgetown Law Center event on
Sept. 20.

The administration is no longer defending the NLRB’s position
that employment agreements in which businesses require workers to
waive their rights to bring class-action claims are invalid. The
waivers compel workers to individually arbitrate disputes with
employers rather than bringing collective lawsuits with
co-workers.

The court’s conservative majority is expected to be sympathetic
to the arguments made by employers.

The court on Thursday agreed to hear a case that could end an
important source of funding for unions representing police,
teachers and other government employees.

The dispute centers on fees that some states require non-union
members to pay to unions in lieu of dues to fund collective
bargaining and other organized labor activities.

Claire Prestel, associate general counsel of the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), said those cases could lead
to a “one-two punch against workers.”

The Obama administration backed the unions in a similar case in
which the justices ended with a 4-4 deadlock last year. The Trump
administration may change course and back the anti-union
challengers.

In another about-face, Trump’s Justice Department has also sided
with Ohio in its bid to revive a state policy of purging
infrequent voters from voter-registration lists, reversing the
Obama administration’s stance that the practice was illegal.

Obama’s former attorney general, Eric Holder, joined a
friend-of-the-court brief criticizing the reversal, saying the
Trump administration policy departed from the government’s
interpretation of Ohio’s law dating back more than 20 years and
spanning administrations from both parties. The justices are set
to hear that case on Nov. 8.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing
by Will Dunham)

Share and Enjoy