The Supreme Court opens the year with a backlog of cases awaiting a decision, some of which were argued in early October. The justices will continue to hear new cases through April and are expected to issue rulings in all of them by the end of June.
Here are the major questions pending before the court this year:
Religious liberty and gay rights
Can a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his Christian beliefs, or can the state require that businesses open to the public provide “full and equal” services to customers without regard to their sexual orientation?
Colorado and 20 other states have civil rights laws that protect gays and lesbians. Trump administration lawyers have urged the court to carve out a “narrow” exception based on the freedom of speech for cake makers, photographers, musicians and others whose work is “expressive.”
Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado was heard on December 5.
When one party controls a state’s government, can it draw election district maps to “entrench” itself in the majority for another decade, even in elections where most voters cast ballots for other party?
Since the 1980s, the justices have frowned on “partisan gerrymandering” as unfair and corrupt, but they have not agreed on a rule for when an election map tilts so far as to be unconstitutional. By contrast, the court has outlawed racial gerrymandering, but often the lines between racial and partisan gerrymandering are blurred.
The justices tackled partisan gerrymandering again in a Wisconsin case, Gill vs. Whitford, heard on Oct. 3.
Cellphone tracking and privacy
Can the FBI and police obtain cellphone data to track the movements of a crime suspect because such phone company-held records are not private, or must they first obtain a search warrant based on probable cause from a magistrate?
Privacy advocates on the right and left urge the court to strictly protect these records. However, investigators say they sometimes need the data to track travel patterns to identify a crime suspect or a terrorist.
Carpenter vs. United States was heard on November 29.
Employees and group arbitration
Can companies require workers to waive their rights to join any class or collective action against their employer and instead resolve disputes as individuals through binding arbitration?
Obama administration lawyers told the court these arbitration clauses were illegal under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which said workers had a right to join a union or take “other concerted activities.” In June, the Trump administration switched sides and said these waivers could be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925.
The court heard the arguments on Oct. 2 in NLRB vs. Murphy Oil USA and two related cases.
Jail before deportation
Can noncitizens who are slated for deportation be kept in jail indefinitely, or must they be given a bail hearing after six months?
Acting on a class-action suit in Los Angeles, the 9th Circuit Court said such detainees have a right to bail after six months if they pose no danger to the public and are unlikely to flee. The justices heard the government’s appeal in 2016, shortly after President Trump’s election, but could not reach a decision.
The case, Jennings vs. Rodriguez, were argued again Oct. 3, and this time with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in position to cast the deciding vote.
Voting rolls and purges
Can states remove voters from their rolls if they fail to vote for two years and do not respond to notices over four years?
The 6th Circuit Court agreed with civil rights lawyers who said this procedure in Ohio violated a federal law that says a voter’s registration may not be canceled for “a failure to vote.”
Arguments in Husted vs. A. Philip Randolph Institute were set for Jan. 10.
Can New Jersey allow sports betting at its casinos and racetracks, or must it abide by a federal law that prohibits gambling on sports, except in Nevada?
The state had lost repeatedly in lower courts, but the justices on December 4 gave a friendly hearing to the state’s claim in Christie vs. NCAA.
Public employees and union fees
Can states require teachers and other unionized public employees to pay a fee to cover the cost of collective bargaining?
The court upheld such laws 40 years ago, but anti-union lawyers say these forced payments violate the free-speech rights of workers.
The court was set to decide this issue in 2016 in the case of a California teacher, but after Justice Antonin Scalia died, the justices were split 4-4.
An Illinois child care worker filed an appeal raising the same issue, and the court will hear arguments on Feb. 26 in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME.
Can California require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose to patients that the state offers subsidized prenatal care and abortion to eligible women, or does this mandatory state message violate the free-speech rights of the clinic’s sponsors, many of whom are morally opposed to abortion?
The court voted to decide the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra, and arguments will likely be heard in late March.
On Twitter: DavidGSavage
Jan. 4, 12:50 p.m.: This article was updated with the latest cases.
Sept. 25, 6:33 a.m.: This article was updated to take account of the new travel ban issued by the Trump administration.
The article was originally published on Sept. 20.