Supreme Court starts new term, with health care, religion on docket
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opened a new term Monday and within weeks is set to hear cases on health care and religion that may give a preview of how the conservative majority will wield its power.
But the eight justices also face a month of unusual uncertainty. They will wait to see if a new justice is confirmed, whether President Donald Trump is reelected in early November and whether they are called upon to decide any disputes that arise if the election is very close.
The outcome of the election will surely shape the term ahead, even though many of the cases are already set. The justices will find themselves weighing cases on immigration, the census and health care from a triumphant conservative administration, or a series of last-gasp appeals from a defeated president.
Either way, the term’s initial cases will be heard by a court with a conservative majority — 6-3 if Trump’s choice, Amy Coney Barrett, has won confirmation or 5-3 if her nomination has stalled. The defining issue of the year seems likely to be how aggressively that conservative majority will move.
An early test is set to come a week after the election, when the justices take up the latest challenge to President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The case is called California vs. Texas, because California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a coalition of Democraticled states stepped in to the defend the law after the administration joined with Texas and a group of Republican states that sued to kill it.
“A preexisting medical condition should never again disqualify you from receiving affordable health care,” Becerra said in response to the administration’s appeal.
The oral argument is set for Nov. 10. The nation should know by then whether Trump has been reelected or defeated.
Another early opportunity for the conservatives will come the day after the election, when the justices will hear a claim from conservative Christians who say they have a religious right to be exempted from anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people.
Two years ago, the court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, but it did so without setting a legal rule. Instead, the justices said only that a state civil rights commission had impermissibly displayed “hostility” toward the baker.
In the new case, Catholic Social Services sued the city of Philadelphia after it lost its annual contract for caring for foster children and placing them with foster parents. The city acted after learning that, unlike more than two dozen other private foster agencies, the Catholic agency had said it would not place children with same-sex couples.