Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement at the end of the 2017-2018 U.S. Supreme Court term, capping a momentous year teeming with big cases and surprise decisions. This term, the justices punted on some matters, issuing more narrow rulings than many observers anticipated. In other instances, the high court affirmed the president's travel ban, limited class actions among workers and opened a wide door to sports gambling, just to name a few of the monumental rulings. We look back at what the justices said in 10 of the term's most consequential decisions. 

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused on religious grounds to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The justices, however, did not extend their decision to include cakes as “art” under the First Amendment. Instead, the court, in a ruling by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said a Colorado civil rights commission had been hostile to the religious views Phillips expressed. Kennedy wrote: “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Trump v. Hawaii 

The justices, divided, turned down Hawaii's challenge to the Trump administration's travel ban. “[T]he government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, saying the majority opinion “leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.” Roberts did repudiate the court's Japanese internment rulings, but that move, long desired from civil rights advocates, was bittersweet in the context of a loss on the challenge to Trump's immigration policies.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis

The justices, upholding employment contracts that carry mandatory arbitration provisions, boosted the power of companies to ban class or collective actions among employees. The court found the Federal Arbitration Act could block workers' class actions. “The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” She wrote: “Congressional correction of the court's elevation of the FAA over workers' rights to act in concert is urgently in order.”

Janus v. AFSCME 

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. led the court in striking down decades-old precedent that said public-sector unions could collect fair-share fees from nonmembers for the purposes of collective bargaining. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember's wages, nor any other attempt be made to collect such a payment unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay,” Alito wrote. “By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.” The ruling was largely seen as a big hit against the power of unions to generate revenue.

5. Lucia v. SEC 

The U.S. Supreme Court said administrative law judges who handle financial disputes at the Securities and Exchange Commission are “officers” of the United States who should be appointed by the president, courts or department heads and not by agency staff. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion. The court, turning back an invitation from the U.S. Justice Department, declined to address the power of the president to fire key officers. Kagan noted that “no court has addressed that question.” Regulatory lawyers are closely watching for any fallout from the ruling across federal agencies that employ administrative law judges.

6. South Dakota v. Wayfair 

A divided U.S. Supreme Court said states are permitted to collect sales taxes from online retailers that don't have a have a physical presence in their borders, a ruling that overturned precedent that blocked such assessments. The case was closely watched for its broad implications for commerce in the digital age. “Each year the physical presence test becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the commerce clause.”

Murphy v. NCAA 

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 1992 federal law that bans most states from licensing sports betting, opening the door to legalized sports gambling nationwide. The decision could transform sports and sports gambling from coast to coast. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act unlawfully “dictates what a state legislature may or may not do. … State legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.”

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute 

Ohio's process for updating its voter registration rolls does not violate the National Voter Registration Act, the U.S. Supreme Court said. The justices, voting 5-4, rejected claims that the state's “supplemental” process for identifying ineligible voters ran afoul of federal prohibitions on using the failure to vote as the reason for striking voters from rolls. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote the majority opinion. “The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress. But this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy,” Alito wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent: “Today's decision forces these communities and their allies to be even more proactive and vigilant in holding their states accountable and working to dismantle the obstacles they face in exercising the fundamental right to vote.”

Gill v. Whitford 

The justices have long struggled to divine a clear path to resolve disputes over how much politics is too much politics when it comes to drawing electoral maps. The U.S. Supreme Court this term turned back a major challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan because the plaintiffs lacked standing, sidestepping the thorny issue of partisan gerrymandering. “It is a case about group political interests, not individual legal rights. But this court is not responsible for vindicating generalized partisan preferences. The court's constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote.

Carpenter v. United States 

Resolving a long-simmering Fourth Amendment question, the U.S. Supreme Court said law enforcement cannot obtain revealing cell phone data without a warrant. The justices' decision in Carpenter v. United States marks a win for privacy interests in the ongoing clash with data privacy in the digital age. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority ruling. “Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's [cell site location information], the government's obligation is a familiar one–get a warrant,” Roberts wrote.