Oral arguments for the new Supreme Court term begin on Monday, including the first for newly appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency is the first case this semester, and it has the potential to establish the EPA's jurisdiction over wetlands as it relates to the Clean Water Act.This is the second time the Supreme Court has heard the case filed by Idaho residents Michael and Chantell Sackett, who are challenging an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order to stop construction and repair property they own near to Priest Lake because it is classified "wetlands."
The Sacketts appealed the decisions of two lower courts to the Supreme Court, where they have been pending for the last twelve years. The Clean Water Act bans dumping pollutants into "navigable waterways," which includes the property owned by the Sacketts. The Supreme Court will now hear arguments on whether the Ninth Circuit used the correct methodology in making this determination.
The second case scheduled for Monday's Supreme Court session includes a challenge by 30 states to Delaware's policy of seizing monies from uncashed MoneyGram checks. This is done in accordance with the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler's Check Act of 1974, which states that unclaimed funds "payable on a money order, traveler's check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable" escheat to the state where the instrument was purchased.
The dispute centres on how "money order" is defined under the relevant statute.
During this term, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a broad variety of other matters
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College will tackle two of the most high-profile issues in the world today: affirmative action. In such lawsuits, the issue at hand is whether colleges and universities may legally utilise race as one of several "plus" criteria in admissions.
In yet another instance, the rights of LGBTQ people are being contested by those of free speech. Graphic designer Lorie Smith, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, claims that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) "forces" her to create and publish personalised wedding websites advertising statements that are contrary to her personal convictions. She also believes she would be barred from explaining her ideas publicly, including her opposition to same-sex marriage, on her own company's website. According to state officials, it is against the law to discriminate against anybody on the basis of "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry." while providing public services.The lower courts' upholding of CADA is consistent with the Supreme Court's prior ruling in a case involving a baker who refused to make a cake for homosexual weddings, but that ruling was based on limited grounds that may not be predictive of the Court's eventual decision here.
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on Fox News.