In a potentially momentous new U.S. Supreme Court term, guns, "dreamers," religious schools and LGBT workplace discrimination are among the issues confronting justices, issues likely to thrust the high court into the crucible of the 2020 presidential campaign season.

As the Roberts Court begins its 15th term on Oct. 7, Supreme Court scholars and others view the court as being in an important transitional period. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial deciding vote in a number of divisive areas, is no longer on the court.

Justice Elena Kagan testifies before the House Committee on Appropriations during a Supreme Court Budget hearing, on Thursday, March 7, 2019.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, starting his third full term, is staking out positions reflecting a libertarian streak in criminal law and an originalist approach second only to that of Justice Clarence Thomas. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who completed his first term, has yet to reveal where he will stand on a number of controversial issues.

With the exception of the partisan gerrymandering and census citizenship cases, the justices had a relatively low-key October 2018 term, which finished June 27.

"They had an astounding array of cases to choose from to fill the final eight argument slots of that term and they took none of them," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law. "That was not a coincidence. After the bruising [Brett] Kavanaugh [confirmation] hearings, I think they tried to keep as low a profile as possible." The "unintended consequence" of that approach, he added, is that the court will be resolving high-profile, divisive cases in the spring of the 2020 election campaign. "In the long term, the court won't have a low profile," he predicted.

Last term left a number of significant, unanswered questions about where the court is headed. Will the unusual alignments of the justices—movements from right to left and left to right by a number of justices—continue?

  • Who could step forward and be a "Kennedy" in the most divisive cases?
  • Will the conservative block on the court harden into an even more conservative majority?
  • Will the internal arguments over stare decisis and the role of precedent continue to divide the court, and if so, what precedents may be at risk?
  • Will Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote vigorous dissents in the gerrymander and property rights cases, emerge as the leading voice on the left?
  • Will the court be able to protect its legitimacy as it continues to face challenges related to the Trump presidency?

"There is a lot of pressure on the court and on [Chief Justice John] Roberts in particular," because of President Donald Trump's portrayal of the court "as essentially in his pocket," said Sarah Harrington, a partner at Goldstein & Russell, during a July 8 term review panel held at the University of California Irvine School of Law.

Here is a snapshot of some of the cases that are on the high court's docket:

Discrimination

The justices have consolidated two cases asking whether Title VII's ban on job discrimination "because of sex" includes sexual orientation. The cases are:

Altitude Express v. Zarda. Saul Zabell of Zabell & Associates, Bohemia, New York, represents Altitude Express; Gregory Antolinno of New York and Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School are counsel to the Zarda estate; and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Brian Sutherland of Atlanta's Buckley Beal represents Bostock; John Hancock of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, Forest Park, Georgia, represents Clayton County.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco

A third Title VII case asks whether the job bias ban prohibits discrimination against transgender persons based on their status as transgender or sex stereotyping under the high court decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

The case is R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee Stephens. James Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom represents the Harris Funeral Homes. U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco represents the EEOC, and the ACLU's John Knight is counsel to Stephens.

Discrimination will also come up in another context. Comcast Corp. was sued by Entertainment Studios Networks, which claimed it couldn't get its channels on Comcast's cable systems because of racial discrimination. Comcast contends Section 1981, which bars racial discrimination in contracting, requires "but for" causation, not just a showing that race was a "motivating factor."

The case is Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada represents Comcast, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California Berkeley School of Law, represents the association.

Immigration

Immigration is back. The justices in three consolidated cases under Department of Homeland Security v. Regents, University of California will decide whether the Trump administration's decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is judicially reviewable and legal.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco represents Homeland Security; Covington & Burling partner Robert Long represents Regents; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous for Dulce Garcia group, and California Deputy Solicitor General Michael Mongan for states.

Constitutional Questions

New York City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded gun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is challenged under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the right to travel.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement represents the rifle association, and Richard Dearing, executive assistant and chief of appeals for the New York City Law Department, represents the city.

The justices will also decide whether a Montana scholarship program which bars the use of its funds at religious schools, consistent with its state constitution, violates the U.S. Constitution's religion clauses or equal protection clause.