Before the Supreme Court recesses for the summer, the court will release the biggest decisions of 2013.
With eleven cases pending, four decisions stand out: Fisher v. University of Texas, Shelby County v. Holder, Shelby County v. Holder and United States v. Windsor.
Here’s what you need to know about the four biggest cases the court is deciding on.
Affirmative Action; Fisher v. University of Texas
Fisher v. the University of Texas challenged the university’s consideration of race in the application and admissions process. In an attempt to create a more racially diverse student body, many universities grant preferential status to applicants who fit their bill.
The court previously ruled on similar cases regarding affirmative action. The decision on Fisher vs. University of Texas examined how SCOTUS’s existing interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment were used by universities, such as the University of Texas, in undergraduate admissions decisions.
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court released its 7-1 decision to pass the case down to lower courts.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the decision that the university did not demonstrate that the program was “narrowly tailored” to meet its goals. The ruling did not exclude the possibility of the continuation of such education programs, but stressed the importance of “strict scrutiny”” in educational affirmative action programs.
Voting Rights Act; Shelby County v. Holder
Congress passed the Voters Rights Act in 1965 outlawing discriminatory voting practices that disenfranchised African-American voters in historically segregated areas of the country. The act helped ease racial discrimination in polling places during the Civil Rights movement by banning practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
The act has regularly been renewed by Congress, and jurisdictions with a previous history of voter discrimination must still get federal “pre-clearance,” or approval, prior to changing any voting laws, election districts or other procedures. Even minor changes, such as moving a polling place across the street, still require a “pre-clearance,” according to Section 5 of the Voters Rights Act.
In 2006, Congress extended Section 5 for an additional 25 years. The four more liberal justices have been solidly behind the law, while the four more conservative justices are opposed, making Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote.
Defense of Marriage Act; United States v. Windsor
Under President Bill Clinton, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into a law in 1996, stating that federal law does not recognize state-legalized gay marriage. This prevents married same-sex couples from receiving a range of federal benefits in terms of taxes, healthcare and pensions
Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage only as a legal union between one man and one woman for any purposes of “any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.”
Gay marriage was not legal in any state when the DOMA was adopted 17 years ago, but today, 12 states plus the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage.
Prop 8; Hollingsworth v. Perry
This case challenges California’s 2008 constitutional amendment, adopted by statewide referendum, that banned same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 was a response to a 2008 decision by the Californian Supreme Court to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A few months after Prop 8 passed, a lawsuit was filed challenging the ban.
The case has gone back and forth between state courts, federal trials and the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the past five years. The Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it took away the previously granted right to marry from homosexuals because of public distaste for same-sex marriage.
This week, the court looks at whether or not Proposition 8 is truly unconstitutional.