源 稿 窗
在文章中双击或划词查词典
字号 +
字号 -
折叠显示
全文显示
The current term of the U.S. Supreme Court is winding to a close, and in the next two weeks the justices are expected to issue nearly 20 opinions, some of them in cases guaranteed to stir controversy regardless of how the court rules.
Cases as yet undecided include a challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, a case that will determine whether a designer of wedding websites is allowed to decline to serve a gay couple, a challenge to President Joe Biden's decision to grant student debt relief to thousands of Americans, and a case that could determine how much latitude state legislatures have to unilaterally change election laws.
The court, on which its more conservative members hold a 6-3 majority, has handed down more than three dozen rulings in the current term, and not one has been decided by a 6-3 split along ideological lines. However, that could change in the coming weeks.
Affirmative action
Among the most closely watched items remaining on the docket are a pair of cases challenging the practice of using an applicant's race as a factor in deciding who is granted admission to colleges and universities. Both cases were filed by the organization Students for Fair Admissions, one against Harvard University and the other against the University of North Carolina.
The case against Harvard charges that the school discriminates against Asian Americans by instituting a de facto quota on the number of people of Asian descent who are admitted. The plaintiffs claim that Asian students have a much lower chance of acceptance than Black and Hispanic students do, in cases where their academic credentials are identical.
The case against North Carolina challenges the school's use of students' socioeconomic backgrounds as a factor in making admissions decisions, arguing that that metric is essentially a proxy for race.
The cases are similar in that each one poses the question: May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? They both ask the court to reconsider previous rulings that found the consideration of race permissible in college admissions, particularly the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.
LGBTQ discrimination
Civil rights activists will be watching for the court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which challenges a state law in Colorado barring businesses open to the public from discriminating against potential clients, including over sexual orientation.
The case arises from a graphic design firm, 303 Creative, whose owner wanted to begin offering wedding website design services. However, the owner, Lori Smith, opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and wanted to post an announcement on her company's website explaining her position.
Such a statement would have been illegal under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which Smith challenged in federal court. Her argument is that she is an artist, and that requiring her to design something to which she is morally opposed is a form of compelled speech.
The case is similar to a 2018 case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which successfully challenged the same law. However, the 2018 ruling was relatively narrow. In the 303 Creative case, plaintiffs are seeking a broader ruling invalidating CADA altogether.
Student debt relief
When he ran for president in 2020, one of Biden's big promises was to provide relief for the millions of Americans who carry student loan debt. After winning the election, the Biden administration announced that it would take executive action to forgive $10,000 worth of federal student debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 per year, with some people eligible for $20,000 in debt forgiveness.
The court has heard two cases related to the executive action. In Biden v. Nebraska, the state of Nebraska and five other states banded together to sue the administration, claiming that in announcing the forgiveness plan, the secretary of education exceeded his constitutional authority. The case was dismissed by a lower court, which found that the states did not have legal standing to sue, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal.
In the case Department of Education v. Brown, the plaintiffs argue that the executive order should be invalidated because the decision amounted to an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' power to make laws. A lower court issued an injunction, barring the administration from taking action on the new policy before the case could be heard by the Supreme Court.
Independent state legislatures
When congressional districts were apportioned after the 2020 census, the state of North Carolina set about drawing a new congressional map for the 2022 elections. With Republicans in charge of the state Legislature, the resulting maps heavily favored the Republican Party. When the resulting map was challenged in state court, North Carolina's Supreme Court declared the map to be in violation of a "free elections" clause in the state constitution and directed that new maps be drawn.
The lawsuit Moore v. Harper challenges the basis of that ruling by asserting a novel legal proposition known as the independent state legislature theory. It holds that state legislatures have essentially limitless authority to write the rules governing elections within their borders, and that those rules are not subject to judicial review.
The theory is viewed as a fringe idea by many legal experts, but it has captured the imaginations of a number of Republican lawmakers across the country. As the country heads toward the 2024 elections, a ruling that supports the independent state legislature theory could give rise to a wave of restrictive new voting laws meant to affect the outcome of races that will determine who the next president will be, and which party will control the House and Senate.