Government Watch / Instagram / Politics

High Stakes for Conservatives as Supreme Court Begins New Term

AMAC Exclusive – by Seamus Brennan

Supreme Court

On Monday, for the first time since the early months of the pandemic, the justices of the United States Supreme Court convened for in-person oral arguments as the Court launched its new term. Over the next several months, the Court is expected to review a handful of highly contentious cases, and with its recently established 6-3 conservative majority—cemented by Donald Trump’s three appointees— Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—the conservative legal movement has many reasons to be optimistic. Here are three of the most high-profile cases that have the potential to reshape the law, overturn controversial rulings from decades ago, and advance some of conservatives’ highest legal priorities.

Religious Liberty: Carson v. Makin

In Carson v. Makin, the Court will consider whether funds from Maine’s state tuition assistance program can be allocated to secondary schools that provide “sectarian” religious instruction. The state currently prohibits such allocation of funds, which petitioners say violates their constitutional rights and unfairly prevents them from using the funds for the schools that are the best fit for their children and families.

In 2020, the Court held in a 5-4 ruling on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that distribution of state funds to religious institutions is constitutionally protected. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that a state “cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” The question before the Court this December, however, is less concerned with a school’s religious affiliation than it is with providing “sectarian” religious instruction in the classroom—and it could have significant implications for religious liberty protections for years to come.

Second Amendment: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

For the first time in 11 years, the Court is set to review a significant gun rights case on November 3, in which it will consider whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry firearms outside the home in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. This particular case will examine a New York law that places restrictions on who can carry concealed weapons. According to the Heritage Foundation, New York currently “requires its residents to obtain a license for lawful possession of a firearm, regardless of whether they plan to keep it at home or take it outside.” Moreover, “to obtain a license, a licensing officer must determine whether the applicant is of good moral character, lacks a history of crime or mental illness, and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’”

Applicants, according to the law, must also have “proper cause” to carry a concealed handgun, whereas openly carrying a handgun is banned outright in the state. In practice, this means that most New York residents never receive a permit and are effectively banned from carrying a firearm for self-defense. Robert Nash, for example, one of the petitioners in the case, was denied the right to carry a handgun after a string of robberies in his neighborhood because he could not demonstrate a “special need” for self-defense. Accordingly, the justices will consider whether New York’s denial of concealed carry permits for self-defense violates the Second Amendment.

Prior to Justice Barrett’s appointment to the Court last October, the justices routinely refused to take up similar Second Amendment cases, signaling that the new makeup of the Court could mark a drastic shift in the scope of cases considered and arguments heard.

Abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Earlier this fall, the Court made news on the abortion issue before even coming into session when it refused to block a Texas law that prohibits most abortions. Now, the Court is expected to hear arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, dealing with a Mississippi law in what many legal scholars consider to be the most significant potential change to Roe v. Wade since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Dobbs would allow the Court to revisit both the Casey and Roe decisions. The focus of Dobbs is a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, barring any medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities.

Mississippi argues that the Court must reassess Roe’s injunction against state-level abortion bans prior to a fetus’s viability outside the womb, citing that an unborn child’s heart begins beating after five or six weeks of gestation and that “basic physiological functions are present” after nine weeks. The Court will hear oral arguments on the Mississippi law on December 1.

For decades, the conservative legal movement has worked tirelessly to cement a majority on the Court that disavows left-wing judicial activism and champions textualist and originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Now that such a majority has been achieved, thanks in large part to President Trump, conservatives are in a once-in-a-generation position to revisit decades’ worth of left-wing judicial activism that undermined the Constitution and usurped the American people’s right to govern themselves.

This week marks a promising new beginning for legal conservatives and an encouraging moment for all those who value the Constitution. Whether this promise comes to fruition will be seen over the course of the next 9 months.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10 months ago

It looks like the Supreme Court is the last chance we have as a Nation to avoid a violent resoluion to the incursion of Communism in our Constitutional Democracy. If the SC fails, that surely puts this Nation’s governance in the throes of some hybrid form of Communism. and steals Constitutional Democracy from out progeny.

10 months ago

Let’s just hope that the so called Conservative judges, vote with conservative interpretation of our laws.
Maybe,just maybe Our Country can begin to truly represent the majority!!

10 months ago

I don’t have trust in anyone or anything that comes out of DC anymore

10 months ago

Roberts is a Bush appointee, which means he is an establishment RINO like Bush. As long as traitor Roberts (frequent traveler on he Lolita)is at the helm, don’t expect much from SCOTUS.

Tim Toroian
10 months ago

It’s not irrelevant, its decisions will stand when the reverse revolution bounces the commies. Some of these Dems should be ASHAMED of themselves for supporting the garbage they are supporting. Eliminate Pelosi and many would revert. She is the worst thing ever to hit American politics. Unless Biden gets ever stupider.

10 months ago
Reply to  Tim Toroian

Pray for God to remove Pelosi, Biden, Harris, Schumer, Cheyenne, McConnell, AOC and cohorts, etc. None are fit to serve.

Bob Ribeiro
10 months ago

Do not cal the court 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts has proven to be an unreliable advocate for Conservative principles.

The court is more likely described as 5-3-1. In specific cases it could wind-up as a 4-5 decision against common sense and the best interests of America’ s future.

10 months ago

Don’t expect much, folks. The “supreme” court has liberal “judges” and compromised “conservative” “judges”. A pile of dog feces has more sense than all of those “judges” put together.

10 months ago

The Supreme Court is NOW IRRELEVANT as long as the Communist Democrats are IN POWER! Our Comrade President WILL JUST IGNORE IT if they don’t OBEY HIS DICTATES.

Ron Howard
10 months ago

Big problems exist about what the administration accepts of the Supreme Court decisions, and what the don’t. Fact, every elected official, and employee of the federal government takes an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, but few demonstrate that they took the Oath of Office. Violating the Oath is a criminal offense, but no one is ever charged with it. Recently SCOTUS affirmed that the immigration law under President Trump, which required illegal Aliens to remain in Mexico while their case was processed, is being completely ignored by Biden. Since SCOTUS does not make law, but instead determines if it is legal under the Constitution, how do we know what , if any of their finding will be followed by the current administration?

10 months ago

Biden and his gang of thieves execute SCOTUS rulings at they see fit and nothing is done to change that. Another way they simply nullify the Constitution. Suppose that had happened with Roe v Wade or Brown v Bd of Education!

J. Farley
10 months ago

Doesn’t it just give you a warm felling, to know that the Supreme Court is looking out for you,
the same Supreme Court that gave you the Miranda Decision, which tells someone that murders you that they have rights did they tell you that you had a right not to be murdered and tells a doctor he has a right to kill defenseless babies, and then Obama care, giving big Government the right to snoop into your healthcare records.
Whenever the Supreme Court is in session your rights are at risk.
God help us with John Roberts presiding.

Philip Hammersley
10 months ago

SCOTUS is NOT 6-3 because Roberts votes however it makes him fit in with the DC plutocrats! He has NO guiding principles! He loves good publicity and the wine-and-cheese set!

10 months ago

It’s a sad commentary on our whole system when judges fall into the category of partisan political status. Too bad we cannot seem to have judges who are just that, judges. Men and women who examine laws and decisions based on the fundamentals of rule of law and the constitution. We make a fuss over their supposed conservative or liberal leanings, and demonize them from both sides. A good portion of the blame applies to the judges themselves as they assume the role of partisan rather than true judges who are impartial and do not seek to make law along the way. The temptation is too great, it seems, and people being what they are (sinful creatures according to the Bible), we should find ways to cancel the partisanship as judges come up for approval by congress. Vetting a judge would seem to be one avenue, providing the vetting is about proper ajudacation, not party line. If a potential judge has demonstrated in previous practice leanings that are away from the rule of law and the constitution, they need not be considered. No one is perfect, but we ought to strive to get as close as we can when it comes to our Supreme court. And if a judge begins to show signs of failing in these areas, they need to be chastized, if not removed. Polititians today just can’t seem to accept judgments that don’t jibe with their agenda, and that’s part of the push to restructure the court for the sake of bias, not real judgment. Our current tendency to mingle the three branches of government do harm to the nation and breed distrust and a deeper bias. We need to be better at this if we are to survive as a nation.

10 months ago

Hate to be a buzzkill but even if we win all 3 the left will just ignore it. I have never seen anything like this in my life. The left is lawless and there are no repercussions for it. Whey they harassed the heck out of Trump at every turn he was expected to stop in his tracks the second a federal judge told him too but when the left has decisions handed to them by the top court in the land they just go on about their business. I don’t know the answer. I’m just living my life and all I can do is vote. KAG

10 months ago

High Stakes for Conservatives…and the ‘Highest’ of Stakes for America!

10 months ago

No high stakes. Conservatives are on the correct side of the issues, if SCROTUS votes incorrectly it’s simply a sign of more corruption and tyranny. That will only push us closer to a coIIapse of society.

Todd Wagner
10 months ago

Flip a coin.

10 months ago

God bless Prsident Donald J. Trump!! I’ve prayed for a US Supreme Court with a majority Constitutionalist Jutices. I now have even more hope that We The People will right course i.e. The Constitution of OUR United States of America MATTERS(!!!) activist judges and politicians must be stopped molesting/usurping our Constitution and, it matters not what you title, (office or bench) we must prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the Law.Some US Representatives and Senators vowed to “Pack” our Supreme Court but, why?We must not let them succeed in their desire to “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA”.

Kathleen Weidner
10 months ago

Thank you for this update. Praying the Supreme Court stays true to the original intent of our United States Constitution, places high value on the lives of the unborn, abortion should not be birth control, and our babies used for grotesque experiments, lives (any person’s life) should not be merchandise for the left’s sick agendas.

Dan W.
10 months ago

Hopeful yes, but keep in mind that there has been an unbroken 50 year stretch of a GOP nominated majority on the Court and many decisions during those years have not gone our way.

Jeff T.
10 months ago
Reply to  Dan W.

What are you referring to when you say, “have not gone our way”? Our United States Supreme Court is for all of We The People ergo “our way” must be the correct interpretation of our US CONSTITUTION; I’ve read nearly all of it and it’s pretty straight forward/unambiguous; this is my perspective and I’m curious, whom amongst my fellow Americans share my perspective.

Dan W.
10 months ago
Reply to  Jeff T.

There are no “correct” or “incorrect” interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

You can read the Constitution as many times as you want and conclude what you think it says but in any given case, the Constitution says what five members of the Court say it says. No more, no less.

10 months ago
Reply to  Jeff T.

I’m sure what you read was the original constitution. “Our Way” means sticking to the ORIGINAL Constitution As WRITTEN. Don’t believe you have read the mountains of add-ones that e now being considered by the Supreme Court judges. That is the problem. Nobody is saying “our outcome” but our way is our original Constitution as the basis of governing law.

10 months ago
Reply to  Dan W.

Exactly. The fact that the Court refused to look at evidence or take up the November election corruptions of the vote, scared me and made me wonder if members were threatened in some way.
If that wasn’t important enough for them to take up with our six to three majority, then we are doomed it seems to me.
If Pelosi and Schumer get that unconstitutional nationalization of election law passed in any form, and the court does not call that unconstitutional, then where are we? What hope have we of surviving as a free country?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x