Why this court term matters

Story highlights Supreme Court term opened by deflecting big cases But that quickly as the Court is poised to decide major issues

How things have changed.

By November, the Court accepted yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Actthe signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration. In a matter of weeks, the justices heard arguments concerning pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and the First Amendment implications of threats made on Facebook.

In January, they decided to take up a challenge to gay marriage, and for good measure, also agreed to hear a case regarding Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol.

"The term went from being one of the more uneventful terms in recent years to potentially one of the biggest ones in a generation" says Supreme Court expert Amy Howe who is the Editor of Scotusblog.com.

Here's a glimpse of some of what has been decided, what has been heard and what is to come:

WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED

Religious freedom in prison: A unanimous Court ruled in favor of the religious freedom claims of Gregory Holt, an Arkansas inmate who wanted to grow a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith, but was blocked by the Department of Corrections' policy that forbid beards except for diagnosed dermatological problems. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion holding that the prison policy violated a federal law designed to protect the religious exercise of prisoners. The Becket Fund for Religious Freedom proclaimed the decision a "huge win for religious freedom" for all Americans. But in a very brief concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, distanced the case from last year's Hobby Lobby decision.

WHAT HAS BEEN HEARD

Separation of powers: A 12 year old American boy, born in Jerusalem, is caught in the middle of a significant dispute between Congress and the executive branch. The disagreement began in 2002 when the parents of Menachem Zivotofsky sought to have "Israel" recorded in his passport as the place of his birth pursuant to a federal law passed in 2002. Sounds simple right? Not according to the State Department, which refuses to implement the law. The executive branch says that because Israeli and Palestinian leaders have long been engaged in a dispute over the status of Jerusalem, it avoids any official act that might be perceived as taking sides. The current policy is to list "Jerusalem" as the place of birth instead of "Israel." The Zivotofskys seek to compel the State Department to follow the law. They argue that Congress has broad power over passports, and that this case is about the identify of a passport holder. A lower court disagreed holding that the law "impermissibly intrudes" on the president's authority to decide whether and on what terms to recognize foreign nations.

Here is the original post:
Why this court term matters