{
  "id": "R44956",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44956",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 573608,
      "date": "2017-09-19",
      "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:17:19.034912",
      "title": "Supreme Court October Term 2017: A Preview of Select Cases",
      "summary": "On October 2, 2017, the Supreme Court is to begin its new term. While the Court issued a number of notable decisions during its last full term, Court watchers have largely agreed that, at least compared to recent terms, the Court\u2019s October 2016 term was diminished both with regard to volume and content. With the Court already accepting over 30 cases for its next term, many of which raise deep and difficult questions in various areas of law, the October 2017 Supreme Court term could be considerably different. The next Court term has the potential to be one of the most consequential in years.\nA full discussion of every case that the Court will hear during the October 2017 term is beyond the scope of this report (indeed, the Court has to grant certiorari to the majority of cases that will likely make up its docket for the upcoming year). But Table 1 provides brief summaries of the cases the Court has already agreed to hear during the October 2017 term, and many of the cases on the Court\u2019s docket are discussed in existing or forthcoming CRS products. The majority of this report highlights four notable cases of the new term that could impact the work of Congress: (1) Carpenter v. United States; (2) Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); (3) Gill v. Whitford; and (4) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.\nIn a case that could decide whether cell phone users have a protected privacy interest in the trove of location data held by their wireless carriers, the Court in Carpenter v. United States will examine whether the government\u2019s warrantless collection of historical cell phone location data is constrained by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In Christie v. NCAA, the Court will consider whether a federal statute understood to bar the partial repeal of New Jersey\u2019s sports gambling prohibition runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment\u2019s anti-commandeering principle. In a case that could significantly impact how congressional and state legislative redistricting maps are drawn, Gill v. Whitford will examine whether a state\u2019s redistricting map constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Finally, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court will examine a dispute that weighs states\u2019 interests in enforcing their civil rights laws against the interests of those who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. The discussion that follows of each of these cases (1) provides background information; (2) summarizes the arguments that were or are likely to be presented to the Court; and (3) examines the implications that the Court\u2019s ruling could have for Congress, including broader ramifications for the jurisprudence in a given area of law.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44956",
          "sha1": "35ab9302e37f999e88d5537dd345f44bca16f95b",
          "filename": "files/20170919_R44956_35ab9302e37f999e88d5537dd345f44bca16f95b.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44956",
          "sha1": "30ece7be5a849a1f4cbd9ceee599b7a3c593bac5",
          "filename": "files/20170919_R44956_30ece7be5a849a1f4cbd9ceee599b7a3c593bac5.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}