The Supreme Court's new term begins Oct. 3. Scotus Blog has a comprehensive listing (as well as extensive links to related documents) of all the cases which the Court has already agreed to review in the upcoming term. Of course the Court will grant cert. in more cases as the October term begins. Here is a summary of cases the Court has already agreed to review which may be of particular interest to individuals concerned with religious liberty and church-state issues. One case clearly presents 1st Amendment religion issues. Several others may affect religious liberty claims, even though their facts do not directly present them.
Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC is the clear religious liberty case. At issue is whether the "ministerial exception" to federal employment discrimination laws applies to an ADA suit by a parochial school teacher who teaches mostly secular subjects. For a somewhat different "take" on the case, readers may be interested in my recent article in Liberty magazine: Howard Friedman, An Issue of Church Autonomy: The Supreme Court Examines the Ministerial Exception Doctrine.
Minneci v. Pollard involves the question of when a federal court may imply a cause of action under the Constitution against an employee of a private company which contracts with the federal government to provide prison services. While not involved in the facts of this case, the outcome may impact the availability of free exercise claims against employees of private food service providers in prisons where inmates claim their religious dietary needs have not been met.
MBZ v. Clinton is of interest to many who follow religious liberty issues not because of the principles of law involved, but because it is a piece of the never-ending religio-political battle over the city of Jerusalem. Congress passed a statute instructing the Secretary of State to permit U.S. citizens who were born in Jerusalem to list their birthplace on their passport and on their Consular Report of Birth Abroad, if they wished to do so, as "Israel." This contradicts a State Department policy that instead calls for merely listing "Jerusalem" as the individual's birthplace. At issue is whether the Congressional statute infringes on the President's powers to recognized foreign governments, and whether the political question doctrine precludes courts from enforcing the statute.
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 involves the rights of state employees in states that permit state employee unions to charge an agency or service fee to non-union members. It is already established that unions may not collect from employees amounts that are to be used for political or ideological issues unrelated to collective bargaining. This may include union expenditures advocating issues to which state employees object on religious grounds. This case raises issues of the adequacy of notice given to state employees regarding fees assessed on them, as well as issues of whether expenditures to oppose anti-union ballot measures are related to collective bargaining.
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., involves the Federal Communications Commission's approach to enforcing a federal statute barring the broadcast of "indecent" language. Many, of course, see religious, as well as constitutional, values at stake in this case. At issue is whether the approach taken by the FCC is unconstitutionally vague. The FCC decided that particular broadcasts involving expletives and nudity were indecent.
