What Does the Supreme Court’s Swelling 2018 Docket Portend for Constitutional Law?

Contrary to popular belief, evolution is integral to the constitutions, bills and other governmental frameworks that many people cherish. To survive the tides of technological and societal change, these documents must adapt and grow to suit the populations they serve. Although it’s impossible to accurately predict where society will dictate that laws go during eras yet to come, the judiciary often serves as a bellwether of how such changes might manifest.

In January 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its intention to add 12 new cases to its docket. This move allowed 11 extra hours of arguments regarding a number of high-profile matters in what already promised to be an exciting term. Here’s what these hearings might mean for constitutional law.

A Quick Outlook on the Docket

What are the additions that have judiciary observers so atwitter? Like many SCOTUS cases, the highlights might have far-ranging legal implications:

Redistricting in Texas

In August 2017, two of the federal congressional districts in the Lone Star State came under further fire when lower courts invalidated them and required that the governor weigh in on whether the legislature needed to get involved in redrawing them. SCOTUS initially put these orders on hold in favor of the state by a narrow 5–4 margin.

The Potential Ramifications

By reconsidering these issues, the justices will further shape the many ongoing state-level debates over partisan redistricting. True, the Texas disputes differ from their contemporary counterparts in places like Maryland, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Nonetheless, these matters will have important implications for the way the two major political parties use gerrymandering in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment.

READ: Sujit Choudhry Writes and Co-Edits New Book “Constitution Making”

Sales Taxes for Out-of-state Retailers

For more than half a century, SCOTUS has maintained that according to the Constitution, states are prohibited from collecting sales taxes on companies that sell to residents without having local physical business presences. Although this opinion held up for decades in the face of evolving mail-order sales practices and even the early-1990s beginnings of the e-commerce age, things may be changing.

The Potential Ramifications

By deciding to hear a case between Wayfair Inc. and South Dakota, the justices might uphold the South Dakota judiciary’s own decision that out-of state-retailers shouldn’t have to follow a 2016 sales tax rule. If SCOTUS reverses its long-held opinion, on the other hand, then it could have significant implications for how states can use legislation to regulate business and still adhere to the spirit of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Either way, this hearing may cause ripples in issues as far-ranging as drug prohibition and consumer civil rights.

Connect with Sujit Choudhry on LinkedIn.

SEC Appointments

As per the recommendation of the federal government, SCOTUS decided to hear a challenge to an ongoing practice of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The issue revolves around whether SEC staff should be permitted to appoint administrative law judges instead of the entire commission needing to take such action.

The Potential Ramifications

Under the Appointments Clause, the executive branch can nominate certain public officers with Senatorial advice and consent. Landmark cases like Buckley v. Valeo have held that individuals who wield significant authority are subject to this clause, but the majority of government employees don’t count as public officers who need Senate confirmation . Although the SEC already ratified the appointments in question, the issue could prove to be critical in the ongoing evolution of revolving-door politics and campaign finance.

SEE ALSO: Sujit Choudhry speaks out on Spain and Catalonia

The First Amendment Implications

Although these are just some of the standouts among the dozen new cases added to the docket, many scholars anticipate interesting developments ahead for arguments regarding the First Amendment. The issue of what constitutes free speech and how it can be used has been an increasingly prevalent topic of continuing debate in the public sphere as well as the judiciary.

Whereas some cases now before SCOTUS, like hearings concerning businesses’ rights to deny services to consumers on religious grounds, base their arguments directly on the First Amendment, others have more tenuous connections. Any rulings in these cases are almost certain to have unanticipated legal fallout for future applications of precedent.

For more constitutional law analysis and insight follow Sujit Choudhry on Facebook, Twitter or visit his website for more information.