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. 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. 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. “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. “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 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. 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. 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 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. Should the court agree to hear the case, Whole Woman’s Health Center v. Cole, No.
– 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.