The Supreme Court is preparing to release much-anticipated decisions as soon as Thursday morning on cases involving abortion access, affirmative action at public universities, President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Only eight cases remain from the current court term, with the court scheduled to be in session only Thursday and Monday, although additional days can be added.
February’s death of Justice Antonin Scalia will play a major role, as the court is now divided 4-4 generally along ideological lines. That split may make justices less likely to take strong, precedent-setting stands this term.
Here are the big cases to watch:
Immigration
At oral arguments, the justices seemed sharply divided over the President’s controversial actions on immigration that could shield some 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work authorization and associated benefits.
Texas, joined by 25 other states, challenged the administration arguing that the programs are part of a pattern of the White House illegally bypassing a Republican-led Congress. A lower court blocked the programs from going forward in early 2015 and the preliminary injunction was later upheld by divided federal appeals court.
If the court splits 4-4, the programs will remain blocked from going forward and the case will return to the lower court that froze the actions in the first place. It is unlikely that the programs will go into effect for the remainder of the Obama presidency.
As a threshold issue, the administration argued that the states didn’t have the legal right or “standing” to bring the case.
Abortion
Abortion clinics are challenging a Texas abortion law that they say is the most restrictive nationwide.
There are two provisions of the law at issue. The first says that doctors have to have local admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, the second says that the clinics have to upgrade their facilities to hospital-like standards.
Critics say if the 2013 law is allowed to go into effect it could shutter all but a handful of clinics in a state with 5.4 million women of reproductive age. This is the most significant abortion case in two decades and the first major case since 2007.
Texas says the law was passed in response to the Kermit Gosnell scandal and is meant to protect the health of women.
If the Court splits 4-4, the law will be allowed to go into effect but no national precedent will be set.
Affirmative Action
This is the second time that Abigail Fisher, a white woman from Texas, has brought her affirmative action case to the Supreme Court. She was denied admission to the University of Texas back in 2008, and she sued claiming discrimination based on race. In Texas, high school seniors who graduate at the top 10% of their class are automatically admitted to the public university of their choice. On top of that program, the school also considers race and other factors for admissions. Since Fisher did not qualify for the program, she applied with other applicants — some of whom were entitled to racial preferences. She was denied admission.
Only seven justices will rule on this case. Scalia died after oral arguments, while Justice Elana Kagan recused herself because she worked on the case while serving in the Obama administration.
Political corruption
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s case centers around the question of what constitutes the scope of “official action” under federal corruption law.
At oral arguments, several justices searched for the proper line to draw between regular activities of a politician, and actions that could violate corruption laws.
In 2014, McDonnell was convicted of 11 counts by a federal jury that found that he violated the law when he and his wife received money and loans (around $175,000 and a Rolex watch) from Jonnie R. Williams, the CEO of a Virginia based company called Star Scientific. Williams at the time was seeking state support in a bid to get FDA approval for a dietary supplement his company was developing called Antabloc.
The government argued that McDonnell received loans, deluxe shopping trips and golf outings and in return used the power of his office to help Williams’ company. McDonnell’s lawyers argue that his actions were limited to routine political courtesies and he never put his thumb on a scale by exercising government power on Williams’ behalf.