As the U.S. Supreme Court approaches the conclusion of its 2017-2018 term, the justices are expected to release a deluge of decisions in the coming weeks, including marquee opinions addressing mandatory union dues, partisan gerrymandering, and President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
As of this writing, there are 25 decisions outstanding.
Among the remaining cases is one of the first argued this term, a partisan gerrymandering dispute arising from Wisconsin called Gill v. Whitford. Its Maryland counterpart, Benisek v. Lamone, is also pending.
Both cases ask the justices to declare politically motivated line-drawing during the 10-year redistricting process unconstitutional. Gill involves a challenge to the entirety of Wisconsin’s state legislative district map, arguing that it violates the Constitution’s First Amendment and its equal protection guarantees. The Benisek plaintiffs are challenging the boundaries of a single congressional district and make a slightly different First Amendment argument.
The court will also pronounce upon the constitutionality of compulsory public section union dues, known as fair-share fees, in Janus v. AFSCME.
Under this arrangement, labor bosses may collect fees from non-unionized government workers to defray the costs of collective bargaining. Though fair-share fees may not be used for political purposes, critics of the regime say workers are still forced to subsidize political activity, since most union business — especially collective bargaining — is deeply political.
For its part, organized labor warns that mandatory dues are essential for labor peace.
Which is basic Bullshit. There are several "right to work" states that refuse to make employees join a union or pay union dues
Trump’s travel ban also awaits judgement.
A coalition of Democratic states and civil rights groups is challenging the latest iteration of the sanctions, which impose entrance penalties to varying degrees on nationals from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.
Though the administration says the sanctions are essential to national security, the plaintiffs charge that they reflect Trump’s anti-Muslim animus in violation of the Constitution’s ban on religious favoritism and exceed the president’s authority under federal immigration law.
Hang onto your hats, boys and girls. The ride could get exciting!