Violent video games, funeral protests, illegal immigration, and DNA testing are among the high-profile issues on the docket as the Supreme Court opens its 2010-2011 term today. Each case will have its turn in the limelight, but the real news is that, for first time ever, there will be three female justices seated on the High Court.
The new-look Court will be without Justice John Paul Stevens for the first time in 36 years. In his place is recently confirmed Justice, and former U.S. Solicitor General and Harvard Law School Dean, Elena Kagan. First up on the docket is Ransom v. MBNA, America Bank, a low-profile case dealing with bankruptcy law. But it won’t be long before the Court tackles some big cases. On Tuesday, the Court considers NASA v. Nelson, which addresses the constitutionality of government background checks on Federal contractors to determine past drug use. Then, on Wednesday, justices will consider Snyder v. Phelps, addressing whether the First Amendment protects picketing at the funerals of soldiers killed in action (which will be the subject of the November 2010 issue of Supreme Court Debates).
Among the other cases of note the Court will be considering later in the term:
• Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: The issue of childhood immunizations has generated a great deal of controversy of late, with a small but vocal group of people claiming some shots have led children to develop health problems such as autism. Although this case does not directly address that allegation, chances are it will come up at some point in briefing, oral arguments and the associated news stories when the Court considers whether parents whose children have been injured by vaccines have the legal right to sue drug manufacturers.
• Schwarzenegger, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association, et al.: On one side is the massive video games industry. On the other are cultural conservatives and family-values groups. At issue is a challenge to the constitutionality of a California law limiting the sale of violent video games to minors.
• Skinner v. Switzer: DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 250 convicts in the United States, but sometimes the real battle is getting new DNA tests ordered and having a court agree to consider the new evidence. In this case, the Court considers whether an inmate can use Federal civil rights law to obtain DNA testing of evidence that was not undertaken prior to conviction.
• Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting: No, it’s not the Arizona immigration law everyone is talking about, but this case could give clues as to how the Court might decide when the Arizona law allowing police to request proof of citizenship eventually makes it to the Court. In Whiting, the Court considers whether an Arizona law requiring all employers to participate in an electronic employee verification program and penalizing employers who hire undocumented aliens is preempted by Federal law.
In addition to these cases and others presently on the docket, the Court is expected to grant dozens of additional certiorari writs in the coming weeks. In addition to the aforementioned Arizona immigration case, politicians and pundits alike are closely watching to see when the Court will step in to resolve the recent legal challenges to gay marriage prohibitions, the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy for gays in the military, and the recently passed health care reform bill.
With that in mind, this could be one of the most high-profile and controversial years the Supreme Court has seen in quite a while.
