2020 rulings that will shape the U.S.
Conservative-leaning Supreme Court has big decisions coming on abortion, Trump’s tax returns and more.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term and is ready to release major decisions on abortion, religion and the separation of powers between the president and Congress — specifically, whether House Democrats or a New York grand jury can obtain President Trump’s tax returns.
The court has already handed down a pair of surprises by extending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect LGBTQ employees and by blocking Trump’s repeal of the Obama-era program that protects the so-called Dreamers, young immigrants who were brought to this country illegally as children. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the court’s four liberals in both cases, triggering dismay and dissent among his colleagues on the right.
The chief justice also figures to hold the deciding vote in the biggest cases yet to be decided. A Louisiana dispute over doctors who perform abortions has taken on added significance because it will be the first abortion ruling since Trump’s two appointees took their seats and because it will signal whether the more conservative court will stick with its precedents on abortion.
Trump is counting on the court to protect him from subpoenas issued by three House committees and a New York grand jury that seek financial records held by his accountant or by Deutsche Bank, which made large loans to his properties. Trump sued to block the subpoenas but lost in three lower courts.
Usually, the court hands down its final decisions by the end of June and goes on recess for the summer. But the coronavirus shutdown delayed arguments in several cases, which could push the decisions into early July.
Here’s a look at the major cases still pending, and the significant rulings:
Pending cases
Abortion and clinic doctors
May a state require that all doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles?
In states where few doctors provide abortions, doctors often travel from out of state to perform them. Louisiana lawmakers say the rule is a matter of health and safety, ensuring that patients facing an emergency can be admitted to a hospital quickly. Abortion rights supporters say it is a sham because it has no real health benefits and would shut down all but one of Louisiana’s clinics. They also say it conflicts with the court’s 2016 ruling on the same rule in Texas.
Four years ago, the court struck down a Texas law that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The court decided then the harm of this rule outweighed its minor health benefits because it had the effect of closing more than half of the state’s abortion clinics. The key vote was cast by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
If it is upheld, the law is expected to leave Louisiana with only one abortion provider, in New Orleans. A dozen Republican-led states have enacted limited or total bans on abortions. All of those laws are on hold, pending further rulings from the high court. (June Medical Center vs. Russo)
Trump and taxes
May a House committee or a New York grand jury require the president’s accountants and bankers to turn over records revealing his personal tax returns and financial dealings?
Trump says his chief executive status gives him “absolute immunity” from such demands, while House Democrats say Congress has a nearly unlimited right to demand confidential information to carry out oversight and investigations. And New York prosecutors looking into Trump’s alleged hush-money payments said grand juries have very broad authority to subpoena records.
In the past, the court has stood united against presidents who claimed immunity when they faced charges of wrongdoing. President Nixon lost unanimously in 1974 when he tried to shield the Watergate tapes from investigators, and President Clinton lost unanimously in 1997 when he sought temporary immunity from responding to a sexual harassment lawsuit.
But the justices did not sound united during arguments in May. Their questions and comments hinted that they might hand down a mixed decision or an opinion that’s not a clear win for either side. (Trump vs. Mazars USA and Trump vs. Vance)
Religion and schools
May a state exclude church schools from a statesponsored tuition aid program that supports students in other private schools, or does that amount to unconstitutional discrimination against religion?
The Montana Supreme Court says its state constitution, like those in threefourths of the states, forbids spending tax funds on churches or religion.
But religious-liberty advocates say the state’s rule violates the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion.
The Roberts court has looked favorably on religious liberty claims. Three years ago, the chief justice said Missouri’s refusal to give a grant to a church to improve the playground of its preschool amounted to “odious”
discrimination against religion. (Espinoza vs. Montana)
President and agencies
Did Congress violate the separation of powers and the president’s executive authority when it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010 as an “independent bureau,” to be led by a director who was appointed by the president and could not be fired except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
Business interests have fought the CFPB from the start, and the Trump administration says the director’s semi-independent status conflicts with the president’s power over executive agencies. They believe in socalled “unitary executive” theory, which holds the president has the power to hire and fire all top officials who wield executive authority.
If the justices agree, the independent agencies could be deemed unconstitutional.
Defenders of the CFPB counter that Congress has the authority to structure the government, including by giving a degree of independence to agency heads. (Seila Law vs. CFPB)
Religion and birth control
May the Trump administration exempt employers citing religious or moral objections from part of the Affordable Care Act that requires them to provide nocost contraceptives to employees?
Under President Obama, the government exempted churches and religious employers from the contraceptive requirement, but said their health insurers could provide the coverage. The
Trump administration wants to shield more employers and not require insurers to provide the contraceptives.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic charity, said that requiring them to participate in any way violated their right to religious liberty. Pennsylvania’s attorney general sued, and the Trump regulation was put on hold. (Trump vs. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania)
Religion and teachers
Are Catholic schools in Los Angeles entitled to a religious exemption from federal anti-discrimination laws because the duties of their elementary teachers include teaching religion?
Two former teachers who were fired filed lawsuits alleging discrimination, but the church’s lawyers say those suits should be tossed out because the church has a right to decide who teaches the faith. One of the teachers was fired after disclosing she had breast cancer. She alleged discrimination based on her illness.
Lawyers for the teachers said they taught fifth-grade classes that included just a daily workbook exercise on religion and therefore they should not be exempt from federal discrimination laws in the same way a priest would be.
Civil rights laws do not include a broad exemption for employers in hospitals, colleges or schools that are affiliated with a church, but the Supreme Court has recognized a “ministerial exception,” which holds that the government may not interfere in the hiring or firing by a church or religious body of people who carry out its religious mission. (Our Lady of Guadalupe vs. MorrisseyBerru and St. James School vs. Biel)
Electoral college and states
Can a state require appointed electors to cast their presidential ballots in the electoral college for the candidate with the most popular support in the state?
Under the Constitution, the winner of the presidency is the candidate with the most electoral votes. Usually electors cast their ballots for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state on election day.
But last year, an appeals court in Colorado ruled that electors had a free-speech right to defy the wishes of their states and vote for another candidate. Many states have laws or rules that require electors to vote as their state wishes.
In a close election, “faithless electors” could tip the balance if they voted as they wished. (Chiafalo vs. Washington; Colorado vs. Baca)
Already decided
LGBTQ workplace rights
Do the federal civil rights laws protect LGBTQ employees from discrimination in the workplace?
Yes, the court said in a 6-3 ruling citing the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It says employers may not fire or refuse to hire employees based on race, religion, sex or national origin. And the court decided discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity amounts to discrimination based on sex.
Trump-appointed Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion, saying that lawmakers in 1964 may not have intended to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer employees, but that the court relies on the words of the law, not the aims of the lawmakers. (Bostock vs. Clayton County)
Dreamers and immigration
Has Trump lawfully repealed the Obama-era order that shielded young immigrants brought illegally to this country as children?
No, the court said in a 5-4 ruling written by Roberts. He said while the president had the authority to revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, his administration was required by the Administrative Procedure Act to cite valid reasons for ending the policy that encouraged about 700,000 immigrants to register with the government to obtain work permits and avoid deportation.
Trump’s aides had relied on then-Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and his claim that the policy was illegal. (Department of Homeland Security vs. Regents of the University of California)