Justices still must rule on key cases
Trump’s taxes, birth control top closing agenda of high court
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to cap a term like no other with potentially blockbuster decisions covering birth control, religious rights and President Donald Trump’s efforts to keep his financial records private.
The justices will tackle their eight remaining cases starting Monday, when they issue opinions in July for the first time since 1996. The cases were heard in an extraordinary May argument session, held by phone because of the coronavirus outbreak. The justices could finish their work later in the week.
Together, the final opinions could rewrite the narrative of a Supreme Court term that hasn’t produced the clear conservative shift some envisioned after Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the court. The rulings will shape public perceptions of the court, and perhaps of Trump, heading into the November election.
Here are some of the cases that must be resolved:
Trump’s taxes: House Democrats and a New York state prosecutor are separately trying to get Trump’s accounting firm to turn over his financial records, material that could include the tax returns he has long refused to release publicly. The House committees are also subpoenaing the president’s banks.
Trump says lawmakers are trying to engage in law enforcement, which his legal team argues is beyond Congress’ constitutional powers, particularly when it
involves the president’s private affairs. And Trump contends presidents should have absolute immunity from state criminal investigations while in office to ensure against unwarranted distractions.
House Democrats say they are pursuing legitimate legislative goals, including updating federal ethics and money-laundering laws and fighting foreign efforts to influence U.S. elections.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. says Trump is trying to put the president above the law. Vance is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records
to disguise hush payments to two women who claimed they had sex with Trump before he took office.
The House case could have the most tangible political impact. If the court upholds any of the four subpoenas, Democrats would get access to a trove of financial records involving Trump, his family and his business — and could make those documents public before the election.
Birth control: The Trump administration is seeking to give employers and universities a broad right to claim a religious or moral exemption from the Obamacare
requirement that they offer free birth control through their health care plans. The opt-out would expand a narrower religious exemption offered by President Barack Obama’s administration as part of the Affordable Care Act.
Although the case could turn on technical questions of federal administrative law, its symbolic and cultural implications loom much larger. And a blessing for Trump’s opt-out could mean that tens of thousands of women would lose access to free contraceptives.
Religious schools: The contraceptive clash is one of two remaining religious rights cases. The court also will decide whether to extend a previous ruling that shields faith-based organizations from discrimination claims by ministers. Two Roman Catholic grade schools in Southern California say that exemption should also apply to teachers who carry out important religious functions.
In the 2012 case, Chief Justice John Roberts said a religious group has a constitutional right to “shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.” That unanimous decision threw out a suit by a gradeschool teacher who had completed a required theology program and been given the title “minister of religion.”
Federal appeals court panels said the circumstances were different in the latest cases because the instructors held the title of “teacher,” lacked any special religious training and didn’t hold themselves out as religious leaders or ministers. The schools are being accused of age and disability discrimination.
The Supreme Court’s conservative wing has been broadly supportive of religious rights in recent years. Last week, a divided court bolstered the school choice movement by ruling that states must include religious schools in programs that offer taxpayer subsidies for private education.
Faithless electors: The pending issue that could most directly affect the Nov. 3 election involves so-called faithless electors, people who cast their votes for president in the Electoral College for someone other than the winner of their state’s popular vote.
At issue in cases from Washington and Colorado is whether states can penalize, or remove, a faithless elector. The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states could require electors to support their party’s nominee, but the justices have never said whether states can take enforcement steps.
Electors are appointed to the Electoral College only if their party’s candidate wins, and the broad expectation is that they will support that candidate. But in 2016, 10 electors voted, or tried to vote, for someone other than Trump or Hillary Clinton. Only nine electors had voted for someone other than their party’s candidate from 1900 to 2012.