The first Monday in October is coming, which means it’s time for the Supreme Court to don their robes and do . . . things.

Back in the day, I used to blog more about the Supreme Court, partly because I had to prepare continuing legal education materials as part of my job.  I don’t do that anymore, unless a particular case interests me.  This year’s docket is a little ho-hum, but there are a couple of cases to watch out for:

• Gonzales v. Carhart: Whether a woman, whose health is endangered by her pregnancy, has a constitutional right to a safe abortion.  This is essentially the same case as Steinberg v Carhart back in 2000, which said that a state law banning partial birth abortions must provide a health exception for the woman.  A defiant conservative Congress basically ignored the Court and wrote the same law — this time it is a federal law.  Under normal circumstances, the Court would try to remain consistent with its prior rulings.  But with the addition of Roberts and Alito, it’s a new court — and this could mark a turning point not only for the "right to choose", but with respect to other protected rights.
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Environmental Agency: Whether the Clean Air Act imposes a mandate on the EPA to issue rules restricting greenhouse gas emmisions.  It’s rare that an environmental case makes it to the Supreme Court.  But this is an important one.  The EPA takes the position that under the Clean Air Act, it cannot regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which means that we don’t have laws to deal with global warming.  Sadly, the EPA is probably right, and I suspect that SCOTUS will find in their favor.  Of course, all Congress has to do is pass a new environmental law, but that’s no going to happen while Republicans are in control.
• Philip Morris USA v. Williams: To what extent a court may impose punitive damages on a company engaged in "highly reprehensible" acts.  I’m interested in this for purely personal reasons.  Philip Morris got slammed hard in a tobacco litigation with punitive damages.  The question is whether there is a limit to the amount of punitive damages.  if the court goes against the tobacco company, that means I have more less job security.  Nuff said.
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 Meredith v. Jefferson County Bd. of Education: Whether local school boards can use race as a factor in assigning children to schools