Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court may rule supreme, but not even its own decisions are safe from itself. While Chief Justice Roberts is known as a staunch supporter of the doctrine of stare decisis, some commentators believe this might be the year for some seriously big SCOTUS reversals.
With the High Court packed with a conservative majority, one major source is predicting that three longstanding precedents may not have long for this world. Those three include:
Dabbling With Dues
As previously explained here, the Janus case could have major implications for public employees across the country. Unions rely upon not just member dues, but also non-member dues, in order to fund operations. And while it may seem unfair for non-members to be forced into paying dues, it is basically the equivalent of a quantum meruit thing. The non-members benefit from the union's work, particularly when it comes to the collective bargaining agreements, and therefore should be required to pay their fair share ... that is, unless SCOTUS decides otherwise.
By taking up the South Dakota v. Wayfair case, the High Court could be making enemies with some of the most easily spurned people in the world: online shoppers. SCOTUS better be careful with this one, lest their 4.5 star Yelp rating could be rather tarnished.
Au Revoir Auer v. Robbins ... Maybe
In the Garco Construction matter pending before SCOTUS, the question of whether federal agencies get to interpret their own regs is up for reconsideration again. However, whether SCOTUS will be motivated to act this time around is another question entirely.