Keeping Up With the Supreme Court
Forget following the latest, minute details from the Obama and Romney campaigns and continue to ignore the most recent debate (or debacle) emerging from Congress. This June, it is time for the third branch of the U.S. government to shine. Or to fail, depending on the political viewpoint. From both sides of the aisle, however, one thing is clear – right now, it’s all about the Supreme Court.
By the end of the month, the Supreme Court will have issued rulings on three of the most contentious issues facing American politics today: healthcare reform, immigration, and campaign finance. This upcoming week, the Court is expected to issue a long-awaited ruling on President Obama’s healthcare reform law, as well as make a decision concerning Arizona’s immigration enforcement policies. Just last Tuesday, the Court delayed a case involving the state of Montana and Citizens United, the 2010 ruling about corporate spending and political campaigns. With so many big decisions on the immediate horizon (and with a Court now notorious for its conservative majority), here’s a brief rundown of what to expect:
1. Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
The Supreme Court spent a full six hours hearing oral arguments for the case back in March 2012, the longest amount of time allotted for a case since 1967. While immediate predictions after the arguments leaned toward the Court striking down the law, the outcome of the case is still very much up in the air. The Court is expected to rule on whether the individual mandate requirement for health insurance is constitutional, but could just as easily decide that it is too soon to hear the case based on tax laws. Here is a great diagram that demonstrates the various ways the Court could make a decision on the law.
2. Arizona vs. the United States
This case is the result of Arizona bill SB1070, a law passed by the Arizona legislature in 2010 that made it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to be in Arizona without registered documents and authorized state and local enforcement of federal immigration laws. At stake is whether states can take on the responsibility of pursing immigration cases, an authority previously left to the federal government. While it looks like the Court may strike down the provision that allows the states to enforce laws against illegal immigrants, it seems equally likely that the most controversial section of the law – a section stating that police must check the immigration status of any person they suspect is “unlawfully present in the United States” – will be left intact. While opponents of the law decry this section as encouraging racial profiling, the justices’ questions focused more on parts of the law that created separate state crimes for illegal immigrants instead of only federal crimes.
3. American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock
A third and lesser-known case is also making its way through the Supreme Court, yet one that would have just as much an impact on national politics and policy making. Originating in Montana, this case could make the 2010 Citizens United court case void on a state-by-state basis. While the Citizens United case allowed for nearly unlimited spending by corporations on federal election campaigns, Montana had previous laws in place specifying much stricter regulations. The Court is ruling on a 2011 verdict by a Montana court that upheld the state’s strict election laws in direct opposition to Citizens United. The expected ruling by the Court was “summary reversal,” a process by which the Court would immediately strike down the Montana ruling without a full hearing. However, the Court delayed an order in the case. According to the website PolicyMic, “the Court still has three options: 1) a summary reversal, 2) accepting the case for a full hearing later this year, or 3) refusing jurisdiction to make any decision about the case at all.” If they refuse jurisdiction, “Montana would win immediately and their state laws would stand.” Given that twenty-four other states have laws that prohibit or regulate corporate expenditures, allowing Montana to keep their laws could effectively reverse Citizens United. As the original ruling has been thoroughly lambasted ever since 2010, the Montana case offers the Court a way to revoke a highly controversial law after only two years.