SCOTUS Preview 2020 Part II: Constitutional and Civil Liberties

Join experienced constitutional practitioners Ameer Benno and Erica Dubno for Part II of Lawline's fourth annual SCOTUS Preview, addressing several critical cases that are to be decided in the 2020 Term. In this course, Ameer and Erica will discuss the following upcoming constitutional and civil liberties cases:

• Bostock v. Clayton County / Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda: Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of . . . sex" within the meaning of Title VII.

• R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC: Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping. 

• June Medical Services LLC v. Gee: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

• Gee v. June Medical Services, LLC: (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a "close" relationship with their patients and a "hindrance" to their patients' ability to sure on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable.

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue: Whether it violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.

• Trump v. Mazars /Trump v. Deutsche Bank: (1) Whether congressional committees have statutory authority to issue subpoenas for President Trump's financial records; (2) whether a congressional subpoena is constitutional if the main purpose is law enforcement, and not legislative; and (3) whether there is any constitutional legislative purpose that would be furthered by the subpoenas.