The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2022
The leak in May of a draft opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade seemed to expose new fault lines at the Supreme Court in the first full term in which it has been dominated by a 6-to-3 conservative supermajority, including three justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump. The court’s public approval ratings have been dropping, and its new configuration has raised questions about whether it is out of step with public opinion.
According to a recent survey from researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas, the public is closely divided on how the court should rule in several major cases. In many of them, though, respondents held starkly different views based on their partisan affiliations. Here is a look at the major cases this term.
In
Carson v. Makin, the court ruled that a Maine program that excludes religious schools from a state tuition program is a violation of the free exercise of religion.
Conservative bloc
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
Prohibiting state funds from being used at religious schools is a valid separation between church and state |
Prohibiting state funds from being used at religious schools is a violation of the free exercise of religion |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: The State of Maine pays private school tuition for students in rural areas that do not have public secondary schools. Maine prohibits students from using this public money to attend schools that are religious (or “sectarian”). Some people think that this is a violation of the First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion. Other people think that this is a valid policy to maintain the separation between church and state. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Shurtleff v. Boston, the court ruled that the City of Boston had violated the First Amendment when it refused to let a private group raise a Christian flag in front of its City Hall, although it had allowed many other organizations to use the flagpole to celebrate various causes.
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
Boston’s refusal to fly a private religious group’s flag did not violate the group’s First Amendment rights |
Boston’s refusal to fly a private religious group’s flag violated the group’s First Amendment rights |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: Upon request, the City of Boston often flies flags of different organizations in front of its City Hall. The city refused to fly a religious organization’s flag bearing a Christian cross. Some people say that Boston’s refusal to fly a religious organization’s flag violated the organization’s First Amendment rights. Other people believe that it did not violate the organization’s First Amendment rights. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
An elected body censuring the speech of a member does not violate the First Amendment |
An elected body censuring the speech of a member violates the First Amendment |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: An elected member of a community college board criticized other board members and was subsequently censured (given a formal reprimand). Some people think the board violated the First Amendment rights of the elected member. Other people believe that the board did not violate the member’s First Amendment rights. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Ramirez v. Collier, the court ruled that Texas would violate a federal law protecting religious freedom if it executed a death row inmate without allowing his pastor to touch him and pray aloud in the execution chamber.
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
Barring religious clergy from touching death row inmates in the execution chamber violates the First Amendment |
Barring religious clergy from touching death row inmates in the execution chamber does not violate the First Amendment |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: Texas law barred a death row inmate from having his pastor in the chamber during his execution and placing his hands on him while praying out loud. Some people think that barring religious clergy from entering the execution chamber and touching death row inmates violates the First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion. Other people think that it does not. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
United States v. Zubaydah, the court ruled that the government was not required to disclose the location of a C.I.A. black site where a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba had been tortured.
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
The government must provide evidence in such situations |
The government has a right to protect state secrets in the name of national security and is not compelled to provide evidence |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: A terrorism suspect currently being held in Guantánamo Bay says the C.I.A. used enhanced interrogation techniques and wants it investigated. The government has declassified some information, but it claims it has a right to protect state secrets in the name of national security and is not compelled to provide evidence connected to the investigation. Some people think that the government has a right to protect state secrets in the name of national security and is not compelled to provide evidence. Other people think that the government must provide evidence in such situations. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Trump v. Thompson, the court ruled that former President Donald J. Trump could not block the release of White House records to a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
A former president cannot block the release of White House records |
A former president can block the release of White House records |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: Former President Donald Trump attempted to block the release of documents concerning his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, on the grounds that he has executive privilege. Some people think that executive privilege allows a former president to block the release of such records. Other people think that a former president does not have the authority to block the release of such records. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
OSHA’s vaccination or testing mandate is lawful |
OSHA’s vaccination or testing mandate is not lawful |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a rule mandating that all employers with at least 100 employees require that their employees either be vaccinated against Covid-19 or else be tested weekly and wear masks at work. Some people think this mandate is unlawful because it exceeds OSHA’s authority. Other people think this is a reasonable use of the agency’s authority to protect workplace safety and health. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Biden v. Missouri, the court found that the Biden administration’s mandate to require health care workers at facilities receiving federal money to be vaccinated was lawful.
Conservative bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
|
H.H.S.’s vaccination mandate is lawful |
H.H.S.’s vaccination mandate is not lawful |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: The federal Department of Health and Human Services (H.H.S.) has issued a rule mandating that health care workers at hospitals and other facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid be vaccinated against Covid-19 unless they qualify for religious or medical exemptions. Some people think this mandate is unlawful because it exceeds H.H.S.’s authority. Other people think this is a reasonable use of the agency’s authority to ensure the safety of patients. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court will decide whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks and whether to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Where the public stands
|
Banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional |
Banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy is constitutional |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: A new law in Mississippi bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Some people think that this law is unconstitutional. Others think it is constitutional. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
|
No, Roe v. Wade should not be overturned |
Yes, Roe v. Wade should be overturned |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: Should the Supreme Court overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion and prohibited states from banning abortion before the fetus can survive outside the womb, at around 23 weeks of pregnancy? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Where the public stands
|
Requiring a person to show a need for self-protection to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment |
Requiring a person to show a need for self-protection to carry a concealed firearm does violate the Second Amendment |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: New York requires a person to show a need for self-protection in order to receive a license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Some people think that this law violates people’s Second Amendment rights. Others think it does not violate people’s Second Amendment rights. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Where the public stands
|
The E.P.A. can set limits on individual power plants and can more broadly regulate emissions across the energy sector |
The E.P.A. can set limits on individual power plants but cannot more broadly regulate emissions across the energy sector |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: Under federal law, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) has the authority to set emissions standards using “the best system of emission reduction.” Some people think this means that the E.P.A. can set emissions limits on individual power plants and can also more broadly regulate emissions across the entire energy sector. Other people think that the E.P.A. can set limits on individual power plants but cannot more broadly regulate emissions across the entire energy sector. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court will decide whether a football coach at a public high school has a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.
Where the public stands
|
The school district was right to suspend the coach |
The school district was not right to suspend the coach |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: The football coach at a public high school led prayers with players before and after games. The school district asked him to stop, and the coach refused. He was then suspended. Some people think the school district was right to suspend the coach because of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. Other people do not think the district was right to do so because of the coach’s right to free exercise of religion. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Biden v. Texas, the court will decide whether the Biden administration can end a Trump-era immigration program that forces asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.
Where the public stands
|
The Biden administration should be able to end the “Remain in Mexico” program |
The Biden administration should not be able to end the “Remain in Mexico” program |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security required noncitizens trying to reside in the U.S. to wait in Mexico while immigration officials process their cases. The Biden administration issued an order ending this “Remain in Mexico” program. In response, several states sued, saying that the administration did not have adequate justification in ending the program. Some people think that the Biden administration should be able to end this program. Other people think that the Biden administration should not be able to do so. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
In
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, after ruling that much of Oklahoma falls within Indian reservations, the court will decide whether state authorities may prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians on those reservations.
Where the public stands
|
States should be able to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on Native American land |
States should not be able to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on Native American land |
|
|---|---|---|
| All |
|
|
| Democrats |
|
|
| Independents |
|
|
| Republicans |
|
|
Question wording: The defendant, a non-Native American, committed a crime against a Native American on Native American land. The State of Oklahoma would like to pursue criminal charges against the defendant. The defendant says that the state cannot prosecute him because the crime occurred on Native American land, and so only the federal government can prosecute him. Some people think that states cannot prosecute crimes that happen on Native American land, even if the perpetrator is non-Native American. Others think that states should be able to prosecute such cases. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Read the full article Here
