After a year in which liberals scored impressive, high-profile Supreme Court victories, conservatives could be in line for wins on some of this term's most contentious issues, as the justices consider cases that could gut public sector labor unions and roll back affirmative action at state universities. 
 
 However, as the court's new term kicks off Monday, uncertainty surrounds several other politically potent cases that could wind up on the court’s agenda. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 Litigation over state efforts to limit abortion by regulating clinics and doctors is making its way to the high court. And the justices are already facing a batch of petitions involving the rights of religious institutions to opt out of providing contraception under Obamacare. 
 
 Both issues seem likely to land on this term's docket, although the justices haven’t formally taken up either. 
 
 Many in the Obama administration would also like to see the court weigh in on immigration in coming months, upholding the president’s right to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children. 
 
 But it’s unclear whether that fight will get to the justices in time for a decision this term or whether Obama’s effort to expand his executive actions on immigration will remain blocked by a lower court order until the president leaves office. 
 
 Here’s POLITICO’s look at five of the most important cases the justices could grapple with soon: 
 
 A potential body blow to labor 
 
 Public-employee unions and politicians of both parties are keenly focused on a California dispute about whether states can compel government employees to pay union dues. A loss for the unions could sharply diminish the clout of a movement already struggling with its political relevance. 
 
 The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was brought by Orange County, Calif. schoolteacher Rebecca Friedrichs and other teachers, who are arguing that forcing them to pay union dues violates their First Amendment rights. They also contend that unions should have to get permission before collecting dues used for political purposes, as opposed to the current system that requires objecting employees to opt out. 
 
 “The significance is substantial, either way it comes out,” said University of California at Irvine Law Professor Catherine Fisk. “The reason why conservative lawyers are bringing these case is the hope that a significant number of government employees choose not to join the union and certain government employee unions will be weaker.” 
 
 The Roberts court has not been friendly to unions, issuing a 5-4 ruling last year that prohibited mandatory union fees for home health workers but stopped short of banning so-called “agency shops” in government. 
 
 The new case directly asks the justices to overturn a 38-year-old precedent that allows all workers covered by union negotiations to be charged for representation. 
 
 How the case will be resolved is unclear, partly because the conservative justices often see limits on government employee’s First Amendment rights when their speech is at issue. Fisk said the unions are “rationally fearful” about what the court will do, but she thinks the justices might end up dumping the case after it’s heard. “I think the case raises so many doctrinal problems for them,” she said. 
 
 
 
 Higher ed affirmative action back in the crosshairs 
 
 Two years after punting the case back to an appeals court, the justices will take a second crack at resolving a dispute about the constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action program. The case was brought by rejected applicant Abigail Fisher, who contends she was rejected because of her race. 
 
 The last time Fisher’s case went before the high court, affirmative action opponents hoped it would serve as a vehicle to pare back preferences for racial and ethnic groups at government-run schools. However, the justices instead told the 5th Circuit it had been too deferential to the University of Texas’s claims that the programs were narrowly tailored to promote diversity. Justice Anthony Kennedy won the support of six other justices for a decision that said such programs must be handled with "strict scrutiny,” but the decision did not suggest they were automatically unconstitutional. 
 
 Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself because she was involved in the case during her previous service as solicitor general. The real question is whether Kennedy will join the four other Republican appointees in setting such a high bar for affirmative action that many public colleges will abandon the preferences and admissions practices they use to achieve racial and ethnic diversity. 
 
 
 
 The meaning of "one person, one vote’ 
 
 A Texas case has the potential to deal a blow to Latino political clout, tilting the balance of power away from urban areas and towards suburban and rural areas with more white voters. Evenwel v. Abbott presents the question of whether state legislative districts can be apportioned using a count of eligible voters rather than a count of all people. 
 
 If immigrants (both illegal and legal) as well as children can be left out of the count, “the rural areas where voters tend to have fewer non-citizens or where there are fewer young people concentrated would necessarily gain,” said New York University Law Professor Rick Pildes. “It’s a reasonable inference if the urban areas are more Democratic leaning that they would lose power to more Republican rural areas.” 
 
 Congressional redistricting shouldn’t be directly affected by the case, Pildes said, because the Constitution says the U.S. census used for that reapportionment should be based on each state's population. But others say the ruling could spill over into Congressional redistricting down the line. 
 
 
 
 Religious nonprofits and Obamacare 
 
 In the Hobby Lobby case last year, the justices allowed for-profit companies to seek religious exemptions from Obamacare’s coverage requirements. But now, several religious-affiliated schools and institutions –including the Little Sisters of the Poor nursing home in Denver – have filed lawsuits, too. 
 
 They argue that the administration’s process for allowing religious nonprofits to opt out of the contraception requirement requires them to violate their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has eight petitions – including one that just arrived from the federal government — on this issue. 
 
 Some prominent judges are effectively begging the Supreme Court to jump in by lamenting the refusal of some courts to protect the largely-Catholic religious entities from sanctions for failing to fill out paperwork that triggers the contraception exemption but also sets in motion coverage from others. 
 
 “How ironic that this most consequential claim of religious free exercise, with literally millions of dollars in fines and immortal souls on the line, should be denied when nearly every other individual religious freedom claim has been upheld by this court,” 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones complained in a dissent last week. “How tragic to see the humiliation of sincere religious practitioners, which, coming from the federal government and its courts, implicitly denigrates the orthodoxy to which their lives bear testament. And both ironic and tragic is the harm to the Judeo-Christian heritage whose practitioners brought religious toleration to full fruition in this nation. Undermine this heritage, as our founders knew, and the props of morality and civic virtue will be destroyed.” 
 
 The justices haven’t signaled which of the challenges, if any, they’ll consider but are expected to do so in the coming weeks. 
 
 
 
 Testing when abortion clinic regulations go too far 
 
 Two of the latest tactics in the abortion wars could wind up before the justices this term: requirements that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and that abortion clinics meet standards for hospitals or surgical centers. 
 
 An appeals court has upheld most such limits in Texas, but in June the Supreme Court voted, 5-4, to block key parts of the law until the justices decide whether to weigh in. Petitions to take up that case and a similar law in Mississippi are already pending at the Supreme Court. 
 
 Supporters of the laws say they are designed to protect women's health, but abortion providers and abortion rights advocates say the laws would force many clinics to close and penalize poor women who could not afford travel to distant clinics. 
 
 A similar Wisconsin law led to combative oral arguments in front of the 7th Circuit last week. Judge Richard Posner suggested the law was a transparent effort to prevent abortions, not aid women. 
 
 “Governor Walker, before he withdrew from the presidential competition, said he thought abortion should be forbidden even if the mother dies as a result, " Judge Richard Posner said to a lawyer for the state, in remarks first reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "Is that kind of official Wisconsin policy?" 
 
 “That perhaps is Governor Walker’s personal view, but it’s not a state policy,” Assistant Attorney General Brian Keenan replied. Keenan insisted requiring doctors to have admitting privileges was a reasonable precaution to aid women. 
 
 “The admitting privileges would benefit the continuity of care for the woman when she goes to that hospital,” he said. 
 
 Posner said the fact that the law was intended to kick in one business day after it was passed made clear the authors' intentions. “That statute can’t be justified in terms of women’s health,” the judge said. 
 
 Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report. 
 
 ||||| The new term’s biggest rulings will land in June, as the 2016 presidential campaign enters its final stretch, and they will help shape the political debate. 
 
 “Constitutional law and politics are certainly not the same thing, but they are interrelated, never more so than in a presidential election year that will likely determine who gets to appoint the next justice or two or three,” said Vikram D. Amar, dean of the University of Illinois College of Law. 
 
 By the time the next president is inaugurated, Justice Stephen G. Breyer will be 78, Justices Scalia and Kennedy will be 80, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 83. 
 
 “This coming term will again put into focus that the court is divided along partisan lines and that the 2016 presidential elections will be hugely consequential in shaping constitutional and other law for perhaps a generation or more,” said Neal E. Devins, a law professor at William & Mary. 
 
 The current court is the first in history split along partisan lines, where the party of the president who appointed each justice is a reliable predictor of judicial ideology. Put another way, all five Republican appointees are to the right of all four Democratic appointees. It was not long ago that Republican appointees like Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter routinely voted with the court’s liberal wing. 
 
 As a consequence of the current alignment, Professor Devins said, “the Roberts court has generated more marquee decisions divided by party alignment than all other courts combined.” 
 
 The last term’s big cases did not for the most part follow that pattern because Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and sits at the court’s ideological fulcrum, voted with the court’s liberal wing at an unusually high rate. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 “The story of the last term is that the left side of the court did a lot of winning,” said Irving L. Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute. 
 
 “This term,” he added, “I would expect a return to the norm, with the right side of the court winning a majority but by no means all of the big cases, with Justice Kennedy again the key vote.” 
 
 The cases on unions and affirmative action, for instance, were almost certainly added to the docket by the more conservative justices in the confidence that they would be able to move the law to the right. Both cases were created by legal entrepreneurs and brought on behalf of plaintiffs recruited by conservative groups. 
 
 Photo 
 
 The case on unions, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, may deal a blow to organized labor. “It could set the stage for a Citizens United-style reconsideration in the area of union dues,” said John P. Elwood, a lawyer at Vinson & Elkins, referring to the 2010 decision that transformed campaign finance law. 
 
 The new case takes aim at a compromise fashioned by the court in 1977 in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. 
 
 In Abood, the court said public workers who decline to join a union can nevertheless be required to pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.” But nonmembers, the court went on, cannot be forced to pay for the union’s purely political activities, as that would amount to forbidden compelled speech under the First Amendment. 
 
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 The California teachers who brought the new case say t collective bargaining is itself political, as it concerns public policy on spending, seniority, class size and the like. Unions respond that the case is a First Amendment Trojan horse designed to further weaken the power of organized labor. 
 
 The unions have reason to be nervous. The court has twice signaled that it may be ready to overrule Abood notwithstanding the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Justice Alito, the court’s leading critic of Abood, offered a joking alternative definition in public remarks last month. 
 
 “It is a Latin phrase,” he said. “It means ‘to leave things decided when it suits our purposes.’ ” 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 The case on unions is not the only sequel on the docket. 
 
 In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14-981, the court will return to the subject of whether the Constitution permits public colleges and universities to take account of race in admissions decisions. 
 
 In 2013, in a short, vague compromise ruling in the case, the court refused to decide whether the admissions plan at the University of Texas at Austin — which combines race-neutral and race-conscious tools to achieve diversity — is constitutional. The court’s return to the subject after an appeals court sustained the hybrid plan has struck many supporters of affirmative action as an ominous sign. 
 
 The case was brought by the Project on Fair Representation, a small conservative advocacy group that successfully mounted a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in 2013. The group is also behind this term’s most important case on voting, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, which asks the court to address the meaning of “one person, one vote.” 
 
 The court has never resolved whether state voting districts should have the same number of people, including unauthorized immigrants, children and others not eligible to vote, or the same number of voters. Allowing states to count only voters would in many parts of the country shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would generally benefit Republicans. 
 
 On the last day of the term in June, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg announced that they had grave doubts about the constitutionality of the death penalty and seemed to invite a broad challenge. It has not yet arrived, and it is hardly clear that a majority would be receptive to such a challenge. 
 
 The new term does have an unusually high number of capital cases presenting more focused issues, including a challenge to Florida’s sentencing scheme, Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505, and a case on race discrimination in jury selection, Foster v. Chatman, No. 14-8349. 
 
 The court has not heard an abortion case since 2007, when it upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. That seems about to change. 
 
 The most likely candidate is a challenge to a Texas law that threatens to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the state to about 10, down from more than 40. Should the court agree to hear the case, Whole Woman’s Health Center v. Cole, No. 15-274, it is likely to produce the most important abortion ruling since 1992, when Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion identified in Roe v. Wade in 1973. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 The question in the Texas case is whether two parts of a 2013 state law imposed an “undue burden” on the constitutional right to abortion. One part of the law requires all clinics in the state to meet the standards for “ambulatory surgical centers,” including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. 
 
 An appeals court largely upheld the contested provisions, but the Supreme Court in June, by a 5-to-4 vote, stepped in to block the ruling while it considered whether to hear the case. 
 
 That suggests three things: that the court is likely to hear the case, that its decision will be closely divided and that the ruling will land in June, thrusting a volatile and divisive issue into the middle of the presidential race. ||||| WASHINGTON—The death penalty is shaping up to be a big issue for the Supreme Court as it begins a new term Monday, with at least six capital-punishment cases on the docket and a recent wave of executions keeping the justices up late to field last-minute appeals. 
 
 In the weeks ahead, the court is set to hear arguments over the constitutionality of capital sentences in Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Pennsylvania. The focus on execution issues follows a 5-4 ruling last term involving a sedative used for lethal injections. The split...
– The Supreme Court is facing a docket of high-profile political cases that will test whether recent liberal victories were more fluke or firm conviction, the New York Times reports. The court—which is divided 5-4 for conservatives, but saw Justice Roberts vote liberal on Obamacare and same-sex marriage—will look at cases including unions, affirmative action, and possibly abortion. A primer: Unions: Since 1977, unions have been allowed to charge non-union workers for dues that go to collective bargaining efforts, but not political ones. Now California teachers have brought a case saying collective bargaining is itself political. "It could set the stage for a Citizens United-style reconsideration in the area of union dues," a lawyer says. Affirmative Action: Abigail Fisher says that being white played a role in the University of Texas denying her admission back in 2008. The Supreme Court punted on her case in 2013, and now it's back on the docket. Like the unions case, this was brought by a conservative group that recruited the plaintiffs. The death penalty: Justices will decide on capital-punishment cases in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Georgia, and Florida, the Wall Street Journal reports. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have already expressed doubts about whether capital punishment is constitutional. "One person, one vote": Should state legislative districts be drawn based on their number of people or eligible voters? If justices choose the latter—leaving out immigrants and children—Latinos could lose political clout and rural areas will gain, Politico reports. Abortion: Justices may opt to revisit a Texas law that could reduce the state's abortion clinics from more than 40 to roughly 10. At issue is whether new clinic requirements are an "undue burden" on women's right to an abortion. One commentator believes this Supreme Court session will be ugly for liberals.