Here Are Six All-Important Cases Now Pretty Much Decided After Scalia's Death

[Fla Dem]

The untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia will likely decide several hot-button cases.
—By Stephanie Mencimer | Sat Feb. 13, 2016 8:59 PM ES
Mother Jones

The last time a sitting Supreme Court justice expired on the job was in 2005, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died of cancer. But Rehnquist's death was somewhat expected, and he died in September, before the start of the October term, and before the court was in full swing with oral arguments and case decisions. Justice Antonin Scalia, unfortunately, has died smack in the middle of a blockbuster court term, with a host of hot-button cases argued, or about to be argued, and all to be decided by the end of June.

Because of the polarized nature of the court, Scalia's death makes it all but certain that in most of those cases, the votes will result in a 4-4 tie, which means that the decision of the lower courts will likely stand unless one of the justices goes off the reservation and votes with the opposite side. That means we can probably predict the outcome of several key cases without having to wait until June.

The results are a mixed bag. The Obama administration is likely to lose an important fight over immigration. Unions win. Reproductive rights for women could suffer. And challenges to redistricting are likely to founder.

Below I have just listed the cases already heard or scheduled to be heard and the probable result according to the author of the OP Ed. More information on the cases are at the link.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of Scalia's death are public sector unions. Labor wins.

US v Texas: Immigrants lose.

Evenwel v Abbott and Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting: Tea partiers lose.

Women's Whole Health v Hellerstedt: Abortion clinics lose

Zubik v Burwell: Nuns lose

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/6-cases-now-decided-justice-scalias-death

[hollysmom]

1. but the ones taht are lost would have been lost by Scalia's vote anyway, so I am missing the

big picture here

[Fla Dem]

6. Maybe I'm missing something. But the unions would not have won

With Scalia still on the court the decision would have been 5-4 for the RW and the unions lose. With a 4-4 tie the decision of the lower court will stand. In the Union case the lower court decided in Labor's favor so that's a good thing.

Same thing in the redistricting case,. Lower court decided against the Tea Party case, so a 4-4 tie let's the lower court decision stand.

Nuns wanted to opt out of allowing their health insurance plan to cover birth control. Lower court decided against them and that decision will stand in a 4-4 tie.

So 3 cases that the left would probably have lost in a 5-4 decision before Scalia died, now at least lives for another day. If Obama gets to elect a new SCJ, or a new Democratic president gets that chance, if those cases come back to the SCOTUS, the Left will then have a 5-4 edge.

[hollysmom]

7. The ones the change from a loss to a win I can see, but the losses would have still been lost.

[backscatter712]

8. The bright side is that these cases won't set precedent.

The circuit court decision would likely stand, which would be bad in this case, but it doesn't become nationwide case law. For case law to be set, another case about these issues would have to go before the court after Scalia's replacement is confirmed and sworn in.

[MohRokTah]

2. There is something missing from the article.

In all cases, 4-4 decisions which simply affirm the lower court ruling can never be used as precedent in any circuit outside the circuit which had the decision affirmed.

So immigrants lose in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but nowhere else.

The same holds true for Abortion clinics.

[Hortensis]

4. Good point about how "precedent" works, Moh.

[Hortensis]

3. The ones won by majority OR tie (thus letting a liberal lower court

ruling stand) might have been lost if Scalia's were voting against 5-4.

[Mike__M]

5. For Native cases too

http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/020374.asp