Top 5 Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Latest Decisions
Most American business leaders believe in the fundamental underpinnings of our republic, including the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, and equal representation. The recent batch of U.S. Supreme Court decisions will have significant implications for the American economy and society. Read on for our five top takeaways that present a mixed bag for preserving our democratic institutions, diversity and inclusion, and free speech and enterprise.
1. Allen v. Milligan is a surprise win for the Voting Rights Act
The 5–4 ruling in Allen v. Milligan struck down Alabama’s 2021 gerrymandered district map for the U.S. House of Representatives for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) constitutional principles of equal representation. Subsequently, the court restored a lower court’s ruling in Ardoin v. Robinson that Louisiana’s congressional lines also likely diluted the power of Black voters there in violation of the VRA.
These are big wins for fair representation and for the millions of Black voters whose voices had been essentially nullified through vote dilution schemes. Business for America and the businesses we represent believe that all eligible Americans should have free, fair, and safe access to the right to have their voices heard and their votes matter.
While we are delighted by rulings that recognize the unconstitutionality of gerrymandering intended to disempower voters of color, the VRA’s other protections must be restored as well. You can read more about why voting rights are important to business in our blog post Dear Congress, It’s Time to Restore the Voting Rights Act.
2. Allen v. Milligan highlights the broad need for nonpartisan redistricting reform
While we fully support this decision that recognizes the unconstitutionality of racial gerrymandering, the ruling draws attention to the fundamental unfairness and harms of ALL gerrymandering. What’s more, it’s bad for economic interests. When congressional districts are drawn to make them safe for one or another of the major political parties, it diminishes the influence of moderates. The results are greater political division and extremism, and less of the good-faith bipartisan politics necessary to move our country and economy forward.
To fix this problem, we urge states to take redistricting out of the hands of lawmakers and entrust it to nonpartisan commissions — as some states already have. This process produces more competitive districts where candidates better represent the communities they serve. It’s time for every public official to embrace nonpartisan redistricting reforms.
You can read more in our statement SCOTUS decision shows importance of drawing fair districts for voters and business.
3. Moore v. Harper is a victory for the separation of powers
The Moore v. Harper ruling reaffirms the essential role of judicial review over the power of state legislatures to regulate the voting process and administration of elections. The decision is a win for political stability and the separation of powers.
The Court rejected the radical “independent state legislature” (ISL) theory that state legislatures can set election rules without oversight from state courts or limits noted in state constitutions. This would put voting rights — and the rule of law — at further risk. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts (writing for the 6–3 majority) rejected the premise that legislatures should have the sole authority over how federal elections are conducted within a state. In addition, an extensive analysis in the decision showed that state constitutions have regulated federal elections since the time of our country’s founding.
Unfortunately, the Court failed to offer clear guidance when it wrote that “state courts do not have free rein” in interpreting state election statutes. As a result, we will likely see additional challenges by proponents of ISL, a threat to the stability of the 2024 presidential election.
The rule of law and our system of checks and balances are essential to the functioning of our democratic republic and our economic competitiveness. While the ISL concept was limited to judicial review of state election laws, the case was a powerful reminder of how essential the separation of powers is to all our rights and liberties, including company choices on how to operate and exercise free speech rights. Thankfully, judicial review remains alive and well.
For more details, see Protect Democracy’s analysis Six Justices Agree: The Independent State Legislature Theory Is Dead and the Cato Institute’s blog post Moore v. Harper: Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Theory.
4. SFFA v. Harvard and UNC decisions will reverberate beyond academia
Affirmative action policies at college campuses across the U.S. have been effectively banned with the Court’s rulings in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, putting an end to decades of precedent. According to these rulings, colleges may no longer use race as a consideration to help increase minority college admissions. Although the decision applies to educational institutions, there are several implications for the business community.
Businesses often rely on colleges and universities to provide a diverse pipeline of talent for recruitment and hiring. As a result, the ruling is likely to make it more difficult for businesses to achieve their diversity hiring goals over the near term. Workforce diversity is proven to have a number of benefits, including employee productivity and business profitability, so many business leaders wish to improve diversity in the candidate pipeline.
Businesses will need to adapt. Companies can offer programs designed to expose students of all backgrounds to different career paths before they reach college. Another remedy is for companies to expand the scope of where they look for new hires. Instead of relying on elite universities, companies can look for talent at community colleges, public state schools, and historically Hispanic, Tribal, and Black colleges and universities. Finally, employers may consider dropping degree requirements when practical.
Another notable business concern is whether these decisions could set a precedent beyond college campuses, potentially affecting their own diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. Many legal experts predict that the decision will embolden critics who claim workforce diversity programs give unfair advantages to certain groups, and they expect lawsuits to bring scrutiny to such programs. In recent weeks, complaints have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that leading companies’ DEI programs are unconstitutional.
DEI policies aimed at creating larger and more diverse pools of job candidates (rather than setting numerical goals like the admissions policies at issue in the Supreme Court cases) will likely be safe from legal challenges. However, policies designed to reserve a set percentage of leadership positions for women or minorities may be more vulnerable. Companies would be wise to review their policies with legal counsel.
For more insights, read the Washington Post article Affirmative action verdict puts target on corporate diversity programs
5. 303 Creative v. Elenis and Groff v. DeJoy raise questions about speech, discrimination, and religious freedom
In a 6–3 decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Court backed a Christian wedding website designer’s choice not to provide services to LGBT couples, and decided she cannot be punished under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. While some applaud the decision as a victory for free speech and religious liberty, others worry that this decision may establish a right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.
In a unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the Court strengthened legal protections for employees seeking religious accommodations at work, siding with a postal worker who refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. This ruling strengthens the rights of religious employees to receive accommodations in their workplaces, but it also elevates the burden on employers.
Both cases reflect an inclination to favor religiously observant groups, siding with religious business owners and employees who claimed that their beliefs conflicted with business practices or discrimination ordinances. The outcome of these cases will spark additional litigation surrounding religion in the workplace and to the rights of businesses to refuse service. Many questions remain as to what defines a “sincerely held religious belief” and where lines are drawn as it pertains to free and fair participation in the economy.
For more details, read the Forbes articles Court Paves Way for More Religious Accommodations at Work With Postal Worker Ruling and Court Rules Web Designer Can Deny Services to Same-Sex Couples
