Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas -- many of the United States Supreme Court's landmark cases originated with Lone Star State cases. By the end of June, SCOTUS is expected to give its opinion on three more critical cases from Texas
Antonin Scalia's death in February means there is one less conservative justice in play, setting up the possibility that these decisions will split.
The three Texas landmark cases for this docket term are on affirmative action, abortion and immigration.
"Those three cases are all three Texas-centered and are all three probably the biggest cases to come out of the Supreme Court this year," FOX34 legal analyst Curtis Parrish said. "There are three Texas cases that will have a huge affect on the entire United States."
Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin is a landmark challenge to affirmative action.
"Should race be a factor in determining college admission," Parrish said.
All public universities in Texas accept all high school seniors in the top 10 percent of their class. Those not in the top 10 percent undergo a "holistic" evaluation process and race is one of the factors. Fisher argues the 14th amendment's equal protection clause prohibits the school from considering race in any manner as part of the admissions process.
"That was a plan, a scheme, set forth by the legislature to make sure that minorities would be well-represented," Parrish explained. "Although she did not make the top 10%, she was qualified to be a student at the University of Texas but she was denied over someone who was less qualified than her who was a minority."
This is the second time SCOTUS is hearing Fisher's case.
"The first time they heard the case, they sent it back to the lower courts for more information," Parrish said.
In March, SCOTUS appeared divided during oral arguments on abortion, a case that could affect the lives of millions of American women. Justices are determining if the Texas law on abortion passed in 2013 is constitutional, specifically two provisions.
"[Texas law] requires doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and the second is to force abortion clinics to be ambulatory surgical centers," Parrish said.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade established abortion is a fundamental right and states cannot deny access to it. Clinics argued the Texas law would force the majority of abortion clinics in the state to shut down, taking away women's access. The state countered that abortion is legal and still accessible under these regulations.
"Many of those clinics would rather shut down than elevate their standards," Parrish said. "The state of Texas did not take away the right of abortion, but because of the restrictions on the doctors and the restrictions on the clinics have made if much more difficult, according to the plaintiffs, for a woman to have access to an abortion."
If the court rules in favor of the clinics, the Texas law is thrown out.
"If there is a 4-4 tie in any Supreme Court case, the lower court case is held. In this case, the fifth circuit court of appeals said that Texas law is valid," Parrish explained.
If the high court rules in favor of Texas, it could cause a national change.
"Every single circuit court will have their own opinion on what the law should be and we don't have national uniformity," Parrish said.
The immigration case could determine President Obama's legacy. The president unveiled executive actions meant to bypass congressional inaction and help millions of undocumented immigrants come out without threat of deportation.
"Congress passed a law that said if you are illegal, you are deported and now the president is going against that legislative action," Parrish said.
"We estimate that 4 million people are eligible for this, but less than half would apply for it," immigration attorney Paola Ledesma said.
Arguing it would cost the state millions, the program was blocked by a Brownsville federal judge last February. Texas and 25 other states sued.
There are two issues at hand: does the state of Texas have the standing to sue the POTUS and are the policies in this executive action legal.
A 4 to 4 split sends the case back to the the Brownsville court and the Texas challenge prevails. If the president prevails, the injunction would be lifted and the programs would go into effect during the final months of presidency. The ultimate fate hangs in the balance of the upcoming election.
"Even if the Supreme Court agrees with it, it will go away once the Obama Administration is finished," Ledesma said.
Expect opinions to be delivered for all three cases throughout this month. Whichever way they go, it is clear Texas has had a large impact on our nation's history.
"It seems like a lot of our federal laws, especially as they go through the U.S. Supreme Court, have their roots in Texas and, obviously, this session is no different," Parrish said.
