8 Civil Liberties Cases Supreme Court Will Tackle in 2013
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Americans’ civil liberties are likely to face some unexpected twists and turns in 2013 as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue at least 10 decisions by June on issues as varied as gay marriage, the role of race in university admissions, federal authority over voting, whether human genes can be patented, whether cops can search for drugs without warrants, and whether corporations can be sued in American courts for human rights abuses committed overseas.
“Civil liberties is a major theme of the cases the justices have agreed to hear,” said Adam Winkler, UCLA Law School professor. “We’ll have to wait for the decisions to know if this term will be a landmark year for civil rights—or for their curtailment. The gay marriage cases, for example, may well be decided on narrow, procedural grounds."
“Perhaps the court will once again skirt striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act,” he continued. “We’ll just have to see. If, however, the court strikes a part of the Voting Rights Act, sharply limits affirmative action, and upholds gay discrimination in marriage, the term will be historic for how it restricted civil rights.”
Here's a summary of the cases that are likely to define the court’s 2013 term.
1. Same-Sex Marriage
The are two cases before the court. The first on whether a California ballot measure that was approved by voters can limit the legal definition of marriage to heterosexual couples, and the second concerns whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act applies to same-sex couples who were legally married under state laws. The California case is being more closely watched because its legal strategy was designed to spur a nationwide ruling in favor of marriage equality. Constitutional scholars are hesitant to make predictions because they see plenty of precedents that would allow the court to go slow sanctioning same-sex marriage nationwide.
2. Federal Voting Rights Authority
There are two cases before the court that could reshape the national political landscape. In the first, right-wing lawyers have sued the U.S. Department of Justice over its authority under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to nullify state-based changes in voting laws in 16 “covered” states if they undermine minority voting rights. During the 2012 election, the DOJ rejected new laws on voter ID, voter registration drives and redistricting. The attorneys claim, among other things, that laws against voter suppression by race are outdated.
The second case looks at a 2004 ballot measure approved by Arizona voters that requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. In most states, including Arizona before it approved Proposition 200, new voters signed a registration form under penalty of perjury attesting to their legal status. Liberal voting rights groups have long said that poor people and minorities often lack original citizenship documents.
3. Race in University Admissions
The issue of affirmative action in university admissions came before the court after a young white woman, Abigail Fisher, who wanted to attend the University of Texas-Austin’s undergraduate program, was not admitted and sued, claiming that its vague affirmative action policy was responsible for her rejection. Like the court’s Voting Rights Act case, her attorneys contend that race-based factors are now excessive and unwarranted. This case was argued in October and legal reporters noted Chief Justice John Roberts’ hostility to the university’s lawyers as they defended their policy.
4. Can Corporations Be Sued For Overseas Human Rights Abuses?
This case, which was argued in October, concerns a lawsuit brought by Nigerians against Royal Dutch Petroleum under an 18th-century anti-piracy law that allows foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for human rights abuses occurring overseas. The stakes are seen as huge by international human rights groups, because should the court void the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act, it would prevent activists from trying to hold multinational corporations accountable for their behavior overseas in American courts.