In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to draw state legislative districts that contain a substantially equal number of voters.
You are here
In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Supreme Court is considering whether the University of Texas at Austin’s holistic consideration of race in undergraduate admissions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the Supreme Court is considering whether to overrule its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld “agency shop” or “fair share” arrangements against constitutional challenge.
Hotze v. Burwell involves a challenge to the individual and employer mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The plaintiffs in Hotze filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas arguing that these provisions violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills.” According to the plaintiffs, the ACA is a revenue-raising bill that did not originate in the House of Representatives.
In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide, among other things, whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is violated by the execution of an inmate after an extended period of incarceration, especially when much of that time has been spent in solitary confinement.
In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court is considering whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to provide individuals a right to sue for damages to vindicate individual rights protected by federal law.
In United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the executive branch acted lawfully when it reimbursed health care insurers for cost-sharing reductions as it is required to do by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as well as whether the House of Representatives has standing to bring this case against the executive branch.
United States v. Texas centers on the legality of President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration.
At issue in V.L. v. E.L. is whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits a court to deny recognition of an adoption judgment previously issued by a court in a sister state, based on the reviewing court’s determination that the issuing court erred in applying its own state’s adoption law.