{
  "id": "R45884",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45884",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 607516,
      "date": "2019-08-23",
      "retrieved": "2019-12-13T16:20:26.198068",
      "title": "Supreme Court October Term 2018: A Review of Selected Major Rulings",
      "summary": "The Supreme Court term that began on October 1, 2018, was a term of transition, with the Court issuing a number of rulings that, at times, suggested but did not fully adopt broader transformations in its jurisprudence. The term followed the retirement of Justice Kennedy, who was a critical vote on the Court for much of his 30-year tenure and who had been widely viewed as the Court\u2019s median or \u201cswing\u201d Justice. As a result, the question looming over the October 2018 Term was how the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh would alter the Court\u2019s jurisprudence going forward.\nNotwithstanding the alteration in the Court\u2019s makeup, observers have generally agreed that the October 2018 Term largely did not produce broad changes to the Court\u2019s jurisprudence. Although a number of cases presented the Court with the opportunity to rethink various areas of law, the Court largely declined those invitations. In other cases, a majority of the Justices did not resolve potentially far-reaching questions, resulting in the Court either issuing more narrow rulings or simply not issuing an opinion in a given case. Nonetheless, much of the low-key nature of the October 2018 Term was a product of the Court\u2019s decisions to not hear certain matters. And for a number of closely watched cases that it did agree to hear, the Court opted to schedule arguments for the next term. \nWhile the Supreme Court\u2019s latest term generally did not result in wholesale changes to the law, its rulings were nonetheless important, in large part, because they provide insight into how the Court may function following Justice Kennedy\u2019s retirement. For the fourth straight year at the Court, the number of opinions decided by a bare majority increased, with 29% of the Court\u2019s decisions being issued by a five-Justice majority. While a number of decisions saw the Court divided along what are perceived to be the typical ideological lines, the bulk of the Court\u2019s closely divided cases involved heterodox lineups in which Justices with divergent judicial philosophies joined to form a majority in a given case. Collectively, the voting patterns of the October 2018 Term have led some commentators to suggest that the Court has transformed from an institution that was largely defined by the vote of Justice Kennedy to one in which multiple Justices are now perceived to be the Court\u2019s swing votes.\nBeyond the general dynamics of the October 2018 Term, the Court issued a number of opinions of importance for Congress. Of particular note are five opinions from the October Term 2018: (1) Kisor v. Wilkie, which considered the continued viability of the Auer-Seminole Rock doctrine governing judicial deference to an agency\u2019s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation; (2) Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire; (3) Rucho v. Common Cause, which considered whether federal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of excessive partisanship in drawing electoral districts; (4) American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a challenge to the constitutionality of a state\u2019s display of a Latin cross as a World War I memorial; and (5) Gundy v. United States, which considered the scope of the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45884",
          "sha1": "06cec14791c20c7afdd7b0cab09b56defa2c5a2d",
          "filename": "files/20190823_R45884_06cec14791c20c7afdd7b0cab09b56defa2c5a2d.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45884",
          "sha1": "cf124c0bd9d1eb9afa267043837b291d8e9a890f",
          "filename": "files/20190823_R45884_cf124c0bd9d1eb9afa267043837b291d8e9a890f.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Health Policy",
    "Science and Technology Policy"
  ]
}