As if the drama this year concerning the pending retirement of Justice Kennedy weren’t enough for SCOTUS aficionados, this fall’s term for the Court could prove to be the most critical in a very long time.
And the decisions coming down will be a bellwether with Justice Gorsuch adding in his two cents.
Two cases in particular will set massive precedents for decades to come.
First is a case on gerrymandering in which liberals are suing the Republican Party in Wisconsin for, essentially, drawing district lines that are too unfair for Democrats.
If the Court agrees, it will force the redrawing of as much as a third of districts across the country.
Second is a case that could overturn Obama’s “Waters of the US” rule which essentially declared every puddle in America property of the EPA.
If the Court invalidates the rule, the EPA’s grip via draconian regulations will come to an end…at least over water.
Here’s more from Daily Signal…
Monday, Oct. 2 marks the start of a new Supreme Court term.
While the arrival of Justice Neil Gorsuch made major headlines, the cases last term did not gain much attention. The Court’s 2017-2018 term, however, promises to be one for the history books.
In their first few weeks back, the justices will tackle several important issues including partisan gerrymandering, the Waters of the U.S. rule, and corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute. Here’s a look at these upcoming cases.
On Oct. 3, the Supreme Court will be pulled into the political thicket of legislative redistricting in Gill v. Whitford. This case out of Wisconsin involves the Republican-controlled legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan.
A three-judge panel invalidated the plan, finding that the Republican legislature intended to “entrench” its power—despite the fact that the plan complied with traditional criteria, such as compactness and contiguity, and that the Supreme Court has previously declined to hear cases involving partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering challenges.
In this case, the challengers have come up with a new theory for challenging a plan that otherwise meets the Supreme Court’s criteria.
This new theory—the “efficiency gap”—claims that votes for one party over a certain threshold are “wasted” and shows that a plan has been drawn to pack voters of one party into a small number of districts.
Another explanation is that like-minded voters simply tend to live near one another.
Will the Supreme Court decide to intervene? Or will the justices say that political disputes are better left to the political branches?
Given that the “efficiency gap” theory could spell doom for one in three redistricting plans, the Court may be reluctant to endorse it.