The Supreme Court has been slow-walking their current decisions for this term. While none of the cases yet remaining at SCOTUS have the explosive factor of Dobbs like last year, there are still very important and controversial decisions yet to come.

And we only have these last few days of June to cram them in.

The remaining cases will continue to test how much government intrusion SCOTUS will allow into our lives by compelling behavior, and establish what limits the executive branch has when it comes to financial giveaways.

The latter issue, as our readers will remember, revolves around Joe Biden’s convoluted student loan debt “forgiveness” program through the Department of Education. There are two cases pending regarding the student loan debt, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. Both cases are seeking to establish standing in the case – can states sue to block this program, or can individuals affected by the proposed debt “forgiveness” sue – and also to have SCOTUS rule if the executive branch has the authority to even institute such a program. The court was not particularly warm to the arguments of the Biden administration when arguments were heard. The case will really hinge on standing, because everyone seems to agree that the plan completely stretches the limits of the constitutional powers of the executive branch. I expect that these two cases, since they are so closely connected, will have their decisions announced at the same time.

There are two linked education-related decisions yet to be released as well. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College both deal with race-based admissions policies at these universities. If these cases are decided for the students, then “affirmative action” as we have seen it since 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger would be overturned. The conservative justices – Clarence Thomas in particular – were not convinced by the arguments that “diversity” was the most important thing in higher education, because the college population should “look like America” – unless that means too many Asian students are admitted. As with the student loan debt cases, these two case decisions will probably be announced jointly.

There is also a fascinating religious accommodations case that might produce a more unanimous decision from the court. Groff v. DeJoy revolves around the United States Postal Service and their current policy of mandatory work on Sundays, in order to deliver packages. You might have noticed that we are seeing mail trucks on the road on Sundays? That’s because the USPS has a contract with Amazon to deliver their packages, which has made them a not-insignificant chunk of change in the past few years (this contract netted an estimated profit of $1.6 billion in 2019), and that contract includes Sunday delivery. This was a problem for Gerald Groff, USPS postal employee.

The dispute now before the court arose when Groff, who is an evangelical Christian, declined to work as a postal carrier on Sundays, because he believes that the day should be devoted to worship and rest. Groff offered to work extra shifts, but the postmaster continued to schedule him on Sundays, while at the same time seeking volunteers to cover for Groff. After Groff failed to report to work when scheduled on Sundays, he was disciplined and eventually resigned.”

Groff then went to federal court, where he argued that the U.S. Postal Service’s failure to reasonably accommodate his religion violated Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination against employees based on their religion. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit disagreed. It ruled that giving Groff an exemption from working on Sunday “caused more than a de minimis cost” for the USPS because it affected the rest of his workplace.”

Representing Groff in the Supreme Court, lawyer Aaron Streett told the justices that there is “no reason” why employees should receive less protection for their religious practices than workers covered by other federal civil rights laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court should interpret the plain text of Title VII to mean that employers should accommodate their employees’ religious practices unless doing so would require “significant difficulty and expense,” Streett argued.”

While the justices all seem to agree that Groff has a strong argument, they were uncertain whether this required them overruling previous precedent established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison in 1977. This might be a very narrowly tailored decision in order to avoid overturning precedent, or this could be a much broader affirmation of religious accommodations.

Colorado law is once again before SCOTUS, as yet another case challenging the state’s anti-discrimination laws is being decided. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is testing the previous Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, as yet another person is arguing that they cannot be compelled to provide services for a same-sex wedding.

A clash of gay rights and religious rights is also yet to be decided by the court. The case involves a Christian graphic artist from Colorado who wants to begin designing wedding websites but objects to making wedding websites for same-sex couples.”

State law requires businesses that are open to the public to provide services to all customers, but the designer, Lorie Smith, says the law violates her free speech rights. She says ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs. Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants.”

During arguments in the case in December, the court’s conservative majority sounded sympathetic to Smith’s arguments, and religious plaintiffs have in recent years won a series of victories at the high court.”

As Masterpiece Cakeshop is being sued yet again, this time for not creating trans cakes (because Jack Phillips apparently owns the only bakery in the entirety of Colorado, not that he’s being actively targeted for his religious beliefs), it would behoove SCOTUS to rule more broadly this time, otherwise Phillips is going to show up on their front steps again.

Will there be any surprises in these rulings, or will the conservative majority make most of these decisions 6-3 splits? We won’t have to wait very long to find out.

Featured image via MarkThomas on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license