FAQ: What cases are before the Supreme Court this term?


All Star
May 24, 2022

Date: Oct. 3​

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

The court heard a long-running challenge that could restrict the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
The case, involving an Idaho couple’s plans to build a house near the shores of Priest Lake, asks what test courts should use to determine what constitutes “waters of the United States,” which the Clean Water Act was passed to protect in 1972.

Date: Oct. 4​

Merrill v. Milligan, Merrill v. Caster

The court is considering whether the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to create a second congressional district favorable to a Black candidate, a decision that could affect redistricting nationwide.
A lower court threw out the state’s map drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature, which gave Black voters a significant chance to elect a candidate in only one of the state’s seven congressional districts, even though African Americans make up more than a quarter of the state’s population.

Date: Oct. 31​

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College; Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

The Supreme Court once again will look at whether universities may consider the race of applicants when trying to build diverse student bodies. It will examine the admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Lower courts found that both schools complied with Supreme Court precedents that said race may be used as one factor universities can consider in a wide-ranging evaluation of applicants.

Date: Not yet scheduled​

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

The justices will consider whether a Colorado designer can tell same-sex couples she will not create a website for their weddings, reviving the issue of where to draw the line between someone’s religious beliefs and state laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination.
At issue is the same Colorado anti-discrimination law that came before the court in 2018, when the justices ruled for baker Jack Phillips, who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The justices decided the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed bias against religious views in ruling against Phillips. But they did not resolve the larger question of when businesses may invoke religious objections to refuse service.

Date: Not yet scheduled​

Moore v. Harper

The justices will consider what would be a fundamental change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats.
The case concerns what is called the independent state legislature theory, which holds that the Constitution provides a role only for legislatures in making the rules for federal elections. It could have an enormous impact on the 2024 election, and essentially eliminate state judicial review of the legislatures’ actions.

Date: Not yet scheduled​

Gonzalez v. Google; Twitter v. Taamneh
The justices will consider a pair of cases that could test legal protections for social media companies concerning users’ posts on their platforms. The first case involves Google’s alleged responsibility for terrorist propaganda on its subsidiary, YouTube.
The lawsuit was brought by the family of a student killed in a 2015 Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris. The relatives claim that the site “aided and abetted” the extremist group, in part by allowing its algorithms to recommend video content from the group.
At issue is a legal provision that shields websites and online platforms from being held responsible in civil lawsuits for third-party posts. Section 230, passed in 1996, has sparked controversy with politicians in both parties calling for an overhaul to the provision. Former president Donald Trump suggested that the law has allowed social media companies to censor conservatives.


I love you, you know.
Sep 3, 2015
The Multiverse
Ballgame status for race-based admissions.

I mean, it’s literally race-based discrimination.

They should just completely anonymize applications anyway.


Jul 14, 2015
Moore v. Harper is literally driven by Trump believing he won both elections, wow.