Supreme Court could strike down several decades-old precedents in major disputes in upcoming term

At least four legal disputes in the conservative-led Supreme Court’s upcoming term are expected to allow the justices to overturn decades-old precedents.

The disputes involve the president’s authority to remove agency heads, prayer over a school loudspeaker, same-sex marriage and the Voting Rights Act. One dispute has been granted a court review and is scheduled for oral arguments in October; the others could be heard before spring.

Court watchers say the justices will likely rule to restrict some of the precedents if they do not overturn them outright.

“With this court, you just can’t tell,” said Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow at People For the American Way. “It’s always a hard guess, but I think this court is willing to entertain a lot of this.”

“The [Chief Justice John G.] Roberts [Jr.] court has been hesitant to outright overrule cases. There are a few exceptions, such as Dobbs and Loper Bright. But the court is more likely to chip away at precedents,” said Josh Blackman, professor at South Texas College of Law.

Mr. Blackman referred to two precedent-breaking court decisions of the past three years.

In 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the justices returned jurisdiction over abortion to the states, overturning 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that established a national right to the procedure.

In 2024’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the court overturned the so-called Chevron deference policy, under which judges deferred to agencies’ interpretations of federal law where Congress had been ambiguous since 1984. The Loper Bright case involved fishermen challenging a 2020 federal rule on payments for monitoring their catch.

Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act

The justices have agreed to hear a dispute in Louisiana over its legislative map. Challengers say it was drawn unlawfully to create two majority-Black districts.

The case could challenge a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was enacted to redress centuries of political exclusion and has pushed states to maximize minorities’ voting power.

The high court heard the case last year but did not issue a decision. The justices said they would rehear the case when the next term begins.

The map, adopted by the state before the 2024 elections, carves out two of Louisiana’s six congressional districts as majority Black. As a result, the state shifted from a 5-1 Republican-majority congressional delegation to a 4-2 Republican-led delegation.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination in voting practices based on race, color or language.

The case will be argued on Oct. 15.

Prayer over loudspeaker

In June, the court was asked to extend the right to pray over a school loudspeaker before a sporting event in a dispute out of Florida that could upend the 2000 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe decision, which found student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games unconstitutional.

The Cambridge Christian School in Tampa has asked the court to hear its challenge to the Santa Fe Independent precedent. The precedent held that student-led prayer over a loudspeaker before a game violated the establishment clause, which restricts the government from endorsing a religion.

The private school argues that its First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion were violated when school representatives weren’t allowed to pray over a loudspeaker before its title game. The school was playing a fellow Christian school, and both sought to engage in the pregame prayer.

Four justices would need to vote in favor of hearing the case for oral arguments to be scheduled. They are expected to discuss the case during a private conference on Sept. 29.

Same-sex marriage

Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign off on same-sex marriage licenses in 2014, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriages nationwide.

Her attorneys petitioned the justices last month to analyze the “legal fiction of substantive due process” in her case.

Conservatives say the doctrine of substantive due process creates certain rights not explicitly delineated in the Constitution. The doctrine was used for decades to support Roe v. Wade.

It would take four justices to vote to hear Ms. Davis’ request for oral arguments to be granted.

Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said the court is unlikely to take up the case.

“There are not five votes to overturn Obergefell or even four to reconsider it, and the court certainly wouldn’t use Kim Davis’ as a vehicle for doing so even if those practicalities were different,” Mr. Shapiro said.

Presidential firing of agency heads

Court watchers say they think the justices want to overturn 1935’s Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a precedent that limits the president’s authority to fire officials at independent agencies.

In recent emergency orders, the court’s conservative majority allowed President Trump to fire the heads of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

A case that could effectively overrule Humphrey once and for all is expected to come before the court during the upcoming term.