Social Issues and The Supreme Court Essay Example

Established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court became the final arbitrator of the law ensuring every American was/is granted equality under the law for not only their constitutional civil liberties but their security as well. Although, the judicial system does not work alone to ensure the well-being of millions of Americans. The Legislative branch featuring both the House of Representatives and Senate creates various legislative bills for state and federal governments. The two tend to work simultaneously with Congress proposing potential laws through bills and the judicial system determining the constitutionality of said proposed law if necessary. With controversial issues such as marriage equality, abortion rights, and digital privacy, both parties seem to come to a stalemate by proposing a consensus for the general public. However, many of these issues tend to creep up on the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans making the legislative process and court systems evermore prominent in the state/federal elections and daily thought.  

Controversy over same-sex marriage has permeated American debates for centuries. The debate over marriage equality for reasons such as religious purposes or simple bigotry left an innocent minority begging for their fundamental rights under the constitution. However, under the Obama administration on June 26th, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges officially recognized the right to marry as fundamental liberty protecting same-sex marriage for all 50 states (Oyez). Obegerfell v. Hodges was initially granted on January 16th, 2015 and a final ruling occurred on June 26th, 2015. Obegerfell v. Hodges came about when groups of same-sex couples sued their state agencies of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to dispute the constitutionality of those states and on same-sex marriage (Oyez). The plaintiffs ultimately argued the states’ violated the equal protection clause and due process clause of the 14th amendment, while additionally bringing in the Civil Rights Act. The supreme court decision was delivered with a 5-4 majority, a very close tie to ending American ignorance and hatred of a simple right to marriage. Although, the Judicial precedent held the right to marry is fundamental liberty concerning the concept of individual autonomy (Oyez). The Obegerfell v. Hodges case was top 10 most historical Supreme Cases to date. The ruling proved hope for a more liberal America in regards to basic civil liberties regardless of the controversies at hand. Love and joy spread the air once the ruling of the case was announced to Americans in 2015. Same-sex couples could now legally join one another in legal matrimony and obtain all the benefits our society provides to married individuals, even granting them an opportunity to begin a family through adoption. Obegerfell v. Hodges was and still is a prominent case in the lives of homosexuals all across America. Numerous pride protests and gay rights movements have now shifted into a designated pride month and LGBTQ+ protecting associations such as The Trevor Project and Human Rights Campaign (HRC). 

Similarly, abortion and reproductive rights for women across America have been continually debated for centuries for religious and moral purposes by its contenders. Reproductive rights are defined as the right to choose whether or not to produce, including the right to decide whether to carry or terminate an unwanted pregnancy (Shalev). Primarily conservative states such as Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina tend to vote on the opposition of abortion due to the religious/conservative nature of deep red states. Ultimately, the precedent of Roe v. Wade upholds abortion as a constitutional right, although, many variations of the abortion issue can be proposed by the state such as shots at planned parenthood or abortion clinics in general.  Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt was initially granted on November 13th, 2015, and decided on June 27th, 2016 (Oyez). The case came to light when Texas Legislature passed House Bill 2 which contained provisions such as requiring any physician performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion was performed (Oyez). The petitioners argued the H.B. 2 denied equal protection and constituted arbitrary and unreasonable state action (Oyez). Overall, the court ruled a 5-3 majority which held in favor of the petitioners claiming the House Bill 2 did not advise medical benefits, but instead, imposed an unconstitutional burden upon women seeking a medical abortion. Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt impacted the daily lives of women in Texas & America by reaffirming their ability to have a legal abortion without unnecessary restrictions of their overly restrictive state. The Supreme Court made sure TRAP laws by stringent governments would fail to restrict women from their bodily autonomy and individual reproductive rights. 

With the 21st century welcoming the digital age wholeheartedly, issues are bound to arise among tracking iPhones, storing data, and even watching individuals through webcams. All of which are worrisome in the age of technological advancements in regards to law enforcement and governmental protection. While technology can be used for educational and social purposes, human rights within the digital age remain a challenge with an unclear answer. In Carpenter v. the United States, the court held a warrant is required for law enforcement to access cell site location information from a cell phone company (McCubbin). The case was granted on June 5, 2017, and was decided on June 22, 2018. The issue of the case arose when a police officer arrested four men regarding armed robberies (Oyez). Timothy Carpenter was charged based on the cell-site evidence & Carpenter argued on the basis of the fourth amendment, stating the FBI needed a warrant on probable cause to obtain the records (Oyez). Overall, Carpenter v. The United States fostered a 5-4 majority that recognized the Fourth Amendment along with expectations of digital privacy (Oyez). Furthermore, the precedent of Carpenter v. The United States allows Americans to freely operate their devices without fear of digital footprints being used against them in a court of law. Digital privacy affects 85% of smartphone-owning Americans and is an important component of our law-making process and judicial evaluation. 

Roe v. Wade initially decided in 1973 held the Due Process Clause was a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s choice of whether to have an abortion (Oyez). Roe v. Wade was an extremely historical and influential case in women’s reproductive rights across America and provided every woman with the ability to terminate their pregnancy despite the circumstance. While many women rejoice and find comfort in the precedent of Roe v. Wade, an upcoming challenge against Roe v. Wade by Mississippi has the potential to revoke the reproductive rights of women once again depending on the state. The revision case was brought to light by Mississippi after banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy which was initially struck down but now used as an argument for a precedent that is “egregiously wrong” (Totenberg). The case is set to be held in this (2020-2021) term and a decision is expected in the spring or early summer of 2022 (Liptak). The impact of many woman’s day-to-day life, as well as decisions, make this upcoming challenge extremely alarming for reproductive rights. With 50 years of Roe v. Wade, the potential reversal allowing state-banned abortions could potentially raise adoption issues within America placing many children into foster care or adoption agencies. Many unwanted pregnancies could potentially foster harsh treatment and abuse for children in resentful households or severely disadvantaged children with depressed parents. Various frightening scenarios for women and unborn children such as those above could potentially play out if Roe v. Wade is overturned. With great medical advancements and growing liberalism in the 21st century, there is absolutely no reason a woman should have to fear for their reproductive rights in daily life. 

Paired with all of the controversial issues above, the judicial branch profoundly shapes public policy within America alongside the legislative branch. One could not work without the other. However, certain issues such as these above should be decided on a court basis. Bias within states by political parties makes a consensus for the majority far more difficult than by a 9 justice vote. However, the court system within America is still improving significantly in its equality and decisions, making the livelihood of future generations following precedents very bright. Social issues constructed and dealt with now pass on as a moral and educational guide.