The arrival this term of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald J. Trump’s third appointee, has transformed a Supreme Court with a slight conservative majority into one that tilted right by a 6-to-3 margin. Justice Barrett has also left Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. with a sharply diminished ability to guide the court’s direction in cases on health care, voting, religion and gay rights.
According to a recent survey from researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas, the public is divided nearly evenly on those key cases.
Covid Restrictions and Religion
In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the court ruled that New York could not prohibit in-person attendance at worship services because it violated the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty.
5-4
DECIDED NOV. 25
5-4
DECIDED NOV. 25
Liberal Bloc
Sotomayor
Kagan
Breyer
Conservative Bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Coney Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
| States can prohibit in-person religious gatherings despite the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion |
States cannot prohibit in-person religious gatherings because of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion |
|
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: Many states have prohibited large in-person gatherings due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Some people think that states cannot prohibit in-person religious gatherings because of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Other people think that states can prohibit inperson religious gatherings. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders
In Jones v. Mississippi, the court ruled that juvenile offenders need not be deemed incorrigible, or beyond hope of rehabilitation, before a judge sentences them to die in prison.
6-3
DECIDED APRIL 22
6-3
DECIDED APRIL 22
Liberal Bloc
Sotomayor
Kagan
Breyer
Conservative Bloc
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Coney Barrett
Gorsuch
Alito
Thomas
Where the public stands
| Juvenile defendants must be deemed incorrigible before being sentenced to life without parole | Juvenile defendants need not be deemed incorrigible before being sentenced to life without parole | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: There are states that reserve the ability to sentence juvenile criminal defendants to life sentences without the possibility of any parole. Some people think that such juvenile defendants must be found to be incorrigible — or impossible of being reformed — before being sentenced to life without parole. Other people think that juveniles can be sentenced to life sentences without parole without states having to make such a determination. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Affordable Care Act
In California v. Texas, the court will decide whether a key provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law is constitutional and, if it is not, whether the entire law must fall.
Where the public stands
| The individual mandate provision is a tax and is constitutional. | The individual mandate provision is not a tax and is unconstitutional. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a tax penalty for not buying health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. Recent legislation has set the tax penalty for not buying health insurance to $0. Some people believe that, because the tax penalty is $0, this means that the penalty is actually not a tax and it exceeds the federal government’s power to tax and is unconstitutional. Other people believe that it does not exceed the federal government’s power to
tax and is constitutional. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
| If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that should not affect the rest of the law. | If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the entire law should be struck down. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a tax penalty for not buying health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. Some people think that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional then the entirety of the ACA must also be unconstitutional. Other people disagree and think that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that should not affect the rest of the law. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Religion and Gay Rights
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the court will decide whether Philadelphia may bar a Catholic agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents.
Where the public stands
| Requiring religious agencies to allow foster children to be placed with same-sex couples does not violate their First Amendment rights. | Requiring religious agencies to allow foster children to be placed with same-sex couples does violate their First Amendment rights. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: There are some religiously affiliated foster agencies that refuse to place foster children with same-sex couples. Some people think that governments can prohibit such agencies from participating in the foster care systems they operate unless the agencies allow children to be placed with same-sex couples. Other people think that doing so would violate the agencies’ First Amendment rights to religious freedom. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Where the public stands
| Discarding entire ballots from voters who voted outside of their precinct is unlawful. | Discarding entire ballots from voters who voted outside of their precinct is lawful. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: In Arizona, if a voter arrives at a polling place and is not listed on the voter roll for that precinct, the voter may still cast a provisional ballot. After election day, Arizona election officials review all provisional ballots to determine the voter’s identity and address. If officials determine that the voter voted outside of their precinct, the ballot is discarded in its entirety, even if the voter was eligible to vote in most of the races on the ballot. Some people believe that discarding entire ballots in this manner is unlawful. Other people believe that it is lawful. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
| Voters should be able to rely on another person to collect and drop off ballots. | States can forbid voters from relying on another person to collect and drop off ballots. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: Arizona offers in-person voting at a precinct or vote center either on election day or during an early-vote period. Many voters — particularly racial minorities — who vote early rely on another person to collect and drop off voted ballots. However, the Arizona legislature made it illegal to collect and deliver another person’s ballot. Some people think that voters should be able to rely on another person or third party to collect and drop off ballots. Other people think that states can forbid this. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Where the public stands
| Requiring nonprofits to report their major donors to the state does not violate their First Amendment rights. | Requiring nonprofits to report their major donors to the state violates their First Amendment rights. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: To detect possible fraud, the attorney general of California requires private nonprofit organizations to report the names and addresses of their major donors to the state, which keeps this information confidential. Some people think that this violates nonprofit organizations’ First Amendment rights to free association because it might deter people from financially supporting them. Other people do not think that this violates nonprofit organizations’ First Amendment rights to free association. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Students’ First Amendment Rights
In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the court will decide whether schools may punish students for social media posts and other off-campus speech.
Where the public stands
| Public schools can punish students for things they say or write off campus | Public schools cannot punish students for things they say or write off campus | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: Some people think that public school officials can punish students for things they say or write off campus, including on social media, without violating students’ First Amendment rights to free speech. Other people think that such punishments violate students’ First Amendment rights to free speech. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Where the public stands
| The NCAA should not be able to strictly limit paid compensation to college athletes. | The NCAA should be able to strictly limit paid compensation to college athletes. | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) strictly limits colleges and universities from providing paid compensation to college athletes. Some people think the NCAA’s strict limits on paid compensation for college athletes in this manner is an unlawful form of coordination against athletes. Others disagree and think that the NCAA should be able to strictly limit colleges and universities from providing paid compensation to college athletes. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
Union Access to Workplaces
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the court will decide whether a California regulation that allows union representatives to meet with farmworkers at their worksites amounts to government taking of private property.
Where the public stands
| States can require that employers allow union representatives to enter a company’s private property | States cannot require that employers allow union representatives to enter a company’s private property | |
|---|---|---|
| All | ||
| Democrats | ||
| Independents | ||
| Republicans | ||
Question wording: California law requires that employers allow union representatives to enter a company’s private property to meet with employees and solicit support for labor organizing. Some people believe that this is akin to the government taking companies’ private property without compensation. Other people argue that the law is acceptable, and is not the government taking companies’ private property without compensation. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll
