The Supreme Court will hear five major disputes from Nov. 30 through Dec. 8 involving employee rights under Title IX, semiautomatic-rifle bans, parental challenges to Washington state policy, civil asset forfeiture and Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voting requirements.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court has scheduled a consequential series of arguments for late November and early December that could reshape federal law governing workplace discrimination, gun ownership, parental rights, civil asset forfeiture and voter-registration requirements.
The five disputes, which are among the cases on the court’s newly released argument calendar, will be heard between Nov. 30 and Dec. 8.
In each, the justices are reviewing a lower-court ruling that rejected or limited the claims now before the Supreme Court.
The cases raise substantially different legal questions, but together they will require the justices to define the boundaries between federal and state authority, determine the reach of constitutional protections and resolve disagreements among lower federal courts.
The Epoch Times reported on the five high-profile disputes after the court completed this portion of its argument schedule.
Title IX and Workplace Discrimination
The first of the five disputes arrives Nov. 30 in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
The central question is whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring private workplace sex-discrimination lawsuits under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
The case combines claims brought by Thomas Crowther, a former Augusta University art professor, and MaChelle Joseph, the former women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech.
Crowther was investigated in 2020 after students accused him of sexual harassment.
He denies the allegations and argues that the investigation and employment process discriminated against him because he is male.
The university subsequently declined to renew his contract.
Joseph separately alleged that she was fired after complaining that Georgia Tech provided fewer resources to its women’s basketball program than to its men’s team.
Both plaintiffs attempted to pursue their employment claims under Title IX.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected that approach, concluding that Title IX does not create an implied private right for employees to sue their educational employers over workplace sex discrimination.
Under that ruling, such claims generally must proceed through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the primary federal statute governing employment discrimination.
The question has divided the federal appellate courts.
Eight circuits have allowed school employees to pursue certain employment-discrimination claims under Title IX, while three have concluded that they cannot.
Crowther and Joseph argue that Title IX provides remedies and procedures distinct from those available under Title VII.
The Georgia university system maintains that Congress established Title VII as the proper private mechanism for workplace discrimination claims and did not create a parallel employee cause of action through Title IX.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has sided with the university system, arguing in a brief that employees do not possess an implied private right to bring workplace sex-discrimination claims under Title IX.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could resolve the existing circuit split and determine which federal statute employees at universities and other federally funded schools may use when alleging sex discrimination by their employers.
A $95,000 Airplane and a Six-Pack of Beer
One day later, on Dec. 1, the court will turn to the Eighth Amendment and civil asset forfeiture in Jouppi v. Alaska.
The dispute arose from an attempt to transport a six-pack of beer to an Alaskan community where alcohol was prohibited.
Bush pilot Ken Jouppi was preparing to fly from Fairbanks to Beaver in 2012 when authorities discovered Budweiser in a grocery bag belonging to a passenger.
Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor for knowingly transporting alcohol into the dry community.
He received a short jail sentence and a fine.
Alaska then sought forfeiture of the Cessna aircraft used for the flight, valued at approximately $95,000.
Civil asset forfeiture allows governments under certain circumstances to seize property used in connection with criminal activity.
Jouppi argues that permanently taking an airplane worth tens of thousands of dollars over the transportation of a small amount of alcohol constitutes an excessive fine prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
His attorneys also maintain that Jouppi did not routinely search passengers’ luggage.
The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture.
“The illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” the state court concluded, finding that seizure of the aircraft was not grossly disproportionate to the offense.
The Supreme Court must now determine how courts should evaluate proportionality in such cases.
One question is whether judges may justify a forfeiture by considering the seriousness of the category of criminal activity generally or whether the Eighth Amendment requires a more individualized examination of the defendant’s own conduct and culpability.
The decision could affect civil forfeiture proceedings well beyond Alaska, particularly disputes in which valuable property is seized following comparatively minor criminal offenses.
AR-15-Style Rifle Bans Reach the Court
The justices will next take up one of the term’s most significant Second Amendment disputes.
On Dec. 2, the Supreme Court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins together, with the two cases consolidated for one hour of argument.
The question is whether the Second and 14th Amendments protect possession of AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles prohibited under laws in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.
Cutberto Viramontes and other challengers sued over Cook County’s prohibition on firearms classified by the jurisdiction as assault weapons.
The restrictions cover AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles along with certain semiautomatic firearms meeting specified feature-based definitions.
Eddie Grant Jr. and gun-rights organizations separately challenged Connecticut’s statewide restrictions.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Second Circuits upheld the respective laws.
The lower courts concluded that the prohibited rifles could be treated as sufficiently similar to military weapons to fall outside the Second Amendment protection asserted by the challengers.
Gun-rights plaintiffs dispute that characterization.
They argue that AR-15-style rifles have been available for civilian ownership since the 1960s and are among the country’s most commonly possessed long guns.
Their argument relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.
Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, particularly weapons commonly used for lawful purposes such as self-defense.
Bruen later instructed courts evaluating modern gun regulations to determine whether the restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The challengers maintain that commonly owned semiautomatic rifles fall within the constitutional definition of protected “arms” and cannot be prohibited simply because governments consider them particularly dangerous.
Cook County has defended its restriction by describing the firearms as “the weapon of choice for criminals and terrorists set on quickly massacring innocents.”
Approximately a dozen states, along with several major cities and counties, have enacted laws regulating or prohibiting categories of semiautomatic rifles commonly described as assault weapons.
Congress enacted a federal assault-weapons ban in 1994, but that prohibition expired in 2004.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the two cases could provide its clearest guidance yet on whether states and local governments may categorically prohibit AR-15-style rifles under Heller and Bruen.
The court’s docket confirms that the Grant case has been consolidated with Viramontes, with the justices using the question presented in Viramontes for the combined argument.
Parents Challenge Washington Shelter Law
Parental rights will come before the court Dec. 7 in International Partners for Ethical Care Inc. v. Ferguson.
Unlike the other disputes, the immediate question is not whether Washington state’s policy is constitutional on the merits.
It is whether the parents challenging it have standing to get their case heard.
Washington historically required licensed shelters to notify parents within 72 hours when a runaway minor entered a facility.
Subsequent amendments created an exception when a minor is “seeking or receiving protected health care services,” a category that includes “gender-affirming treatment.”
Under those circumstances, the shelter reports the child’s presence to the state rather than immediately notifying the parents.
The law does not establish a fixed timeline for reunification, and challengers contend parents can be left without information concerning their child’s whereabouts or condition.
International Partners for Ethical Care and five sets of Washington parents sued Gov. Bob Ferguson and other state officials.
They argue that the policy interferes with parents’ constitutional authority to direct the care, upbringing and medical decisions of their children.
Both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Standing requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a sufficiently concrete and legally recognizable injury connecting them to the challenged government action.
The Supreme Court agreed to review whether the parents and organization satisfy that requirement.
The case therefore could determine whether families must wait until a particular child is subjected to the policy before challenging it or whether the existence of the law and resulting threat to parental decision-making creates a sufficient injury for federal court review.
A ruling that the plaintiffs have standing would allow their constitutional challenge to proceed.
It would not necessarily mean the Supreme Court had concluded the Washington law itself violates parental rights.
Arizona Citizenship Requirements Close the Five-Case Stretch
The final dispute comes Dec. 8 and centers on voter registration in Arizona.
In Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, the justices will consider state rules requiring documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship and the circumstances under which officials may cancel registrations after confirming that a voter is not a citizen.
Federal law already restricts voting in federal elections to U.S. citizens.
The legal dispute concerns how Arizona may verify that qualification and when voter-registration records can be removed.
A 2022 law signed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey requires people registering through Arizona’s state form to provide “satisfactory evidence” of citizenship.
Acceptable documentation can include a passport, birth certificate or naturalization documents.
The law also directs officials to cancel registrations when government checks confirm that a registered person is not a U.S. citizen.
Mi Familia Vota and other groups challenged those provisions.
They argue that portions of the law conflict with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and a 2018 consent decree governing Arizona’s voter-registration procedures.
One of the disputed issues involves the NVRA’s 90-day period before federal elections, during which states face restrictions on systematic programs to remove names from voter rolls.
The challengers argue that Arizona cannot conduct the disputed removals during that period.
The Ninth Circuit largely agreed with their position and blocked significant portions of the Arizona law.
The Supreme Court had previously allowed the state, while the litigation continued, to enforce its documentary proof requirement for new applicants registering with Arizona’s state form.
The Republican National Committee argues that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation prevents Arizona from effectively enforcing the citizenship qualification for voting.
The Justice Department has supported cancellation of registrations when officials have confirmed that the registrant is not a U.S. citizen.
Voting-rights organizations contend that voter-roll removal programs conducted shortly before an election can mistakenly remove eligible citizens when there is insufficient time to identify and correct errors.
The Supreme Court will therefore be examining two related but distinct issues: what proof Arizona may require from certain new registrants and what the state may do when officials identify confirmed noncitizens during the 90-day pre-election period.
Five Disputes, Broad Constitutional Stakes
Although the cases arise from unrelated factual circumstances, each asks the Supreme Court to reconsider a lower-court interpretation that restricted the challengers’ claims.
Crowther asks whether employees can use Title IX to sue educational employers for sex discrimination.
Jouppi asks how far government forfeiture may go before it becomes an excessive fine.
Viramontes and Grant ask whether widely owned semiautomatic rifles fall within Second Amendment protection despite state and local assault-weapons bans.
International Partners for Ethical Care asks whether parents have standing to challenge Washington’s rules surrounding runaway minors seeking certain health services.
Republican National Committee asks how Arizona’s authority to verify citizenship and remove confirmed noncitizens from voter rolls interacts with federal election law.
The cases also illustrate the different ways Supreme Court rulings can have national consequences.
A ruling in the Title IX dispute could settle a longstanding disagreement among federal appeals courts.
The gun cases could determine the constitutional status of laws affecting millions of firearms and similar restrictions in roughly a dozen states.
The Washington case could affect when parents are permitted to challenge government policies involving their children.
The Alaska dispute could redefine how courts determine whether property forfeiture is excessive.
And the Arizona case could clarify how citizenship-verification requirements interact with federal voter-registration protections shortly before elections.
Arguments begin Nov. 30 and conclude with the Arizona voting case Dec. 8.
The court’s decisions will come later in its 2026-27 term.
Original article
Comments