This is a study of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. The article attempts to predict the verdict based on factors relevant to the court's decision. I have examined the facts of the case, motions submitted by petitioners and respondents, Supreme Court precedents, interpretive tests, amicus curiae briefs, and voting patterns of Supreme Court justices.
Based on this information, I have come to the conclusion that I believe the court will enter a conservative judgment in favor of the petitioners, Masterpiece Cakeshop.
THE LITIGANTS AND THE PROCESS
It was decided that the message sent by a cake would be the message of the customer and not the baker. This decision prediction will be made using a variety of information gathered from research. I will look at the relevant past decisions of the Supreme Court, so appreciate their initial trend.
There have been cases where the Court has favored First Amendment rights and stood up for the government's best interests. Each of the statements brings a unique perspective and so it will be interesting to sort through them to see the resounding impact the statement will have on people from different walks of life. All these legal documents will be very important in predicting the verdict.
It will be useful to make a forecast to consider the composition of the Court at this time. In the course of the paper, it is my wish that the significance, importance, and importance of the ramifications resulting from this case will be very apparent.
INFLUENCES ON THE SUPREME COURT
The court applied the O'Brien test and held that the government's interest in this case was related to the suppression of the speech element and therefore did not justify a restriction on speech. In support of the idea that individuals retain the right to hold a viewpoint that differs from the majority, the Court held that individuals should not be required to host the government's message. Dale (2000), the court ruled 5-to-4 that the Boy Scouts could not be forced to allow a homosexual to serve as a troop leader.
The court's opinion indicates that the government does not have the right to suppress a point of view simply because society may find it offensive. The Court found 7-2 that this placed a significant burden on the free exercise of religion and was not justified by a compelling state interest. When the government's interests did not outweigh the burden placed on the free exercise of religion, the Court ruled on individual rights.
Here too, the Court unanimously ruled that the government's interest does not outweigh the potential burden on the free exercise of religion. The Court held that the Oregon law was a neutral law of general applicability because it contained no exceptions. As in Smith, the Court ruled 8 to 1 that the government's interest justified the free exercise burden.
The Court has developed interpretive tests for each of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and more. Fundamental rights are those which the Court has deemed to deserve the highest degree of protection. In the Obergefell case, the Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Court determined that the law was neutral in nature, not intended to infringe on an individual's rights. The Court decided 6-to-3 that the amendment did not advance any compelling government interest and thus did not meet strict scrutiny and could not stand as law. The Court found 6-to-3 that this law did not advance a legitimate state interest, but denied it.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that this legislation puts homosexuals at a disadvantage by stripping them of their rights. The Constitution does not require someone whose speech is valuable enough that others want to pay for it to choose between accepting compensation and maintaining First Amendment protections.” The institute argues that this creates what they call a line-drawing problem.
VOTING PATTERNS OF CURRENT JUSTICES
Broken down by topic, he receives a score of 40 in civil rights issues and a score of 33 in issues arising from the First Amendment (Segal and Cover). His voting pattern since his introduction to the Court consists of a liberal vote in 40% of civil rights cases and 50% of First Amendment cases (InsideGov). He is ideologically middle of the road which makes his voice decisive in the divided decisions of the Court.
Kennedy's current Segal-Cover scores are 42 on civil rights and 44 on the First Amendment (Segal and Cover). Half the time he sides with the conservatives and half the time he sides with the liberals. Segal-Cover gives him a score of 16, marking him as one of the Court's most conservative justices.
Topically, she has a score of 69 on civil rights and First Amendment issues (Segal and Cover). Ginsburg's liberal voting percentages since her introduction to the Court are 69% in civil rights and First Amendment cases (InsideGov). In civil rights cases he has achieved a score of 69 and in First Amendment cases he has achieved a score of 50 (Segal and.
During his time on the court, Breyer voted liberally 70% of the time on civil rights cases and 56% of the time on First Amendment cases (InsideGov). These numbers indicate that Justice Alito is one of the most conservative justices on the current court. Sotomayor's score for civil rights cases is 63 and her score for First Amendment cases is 76 (Segal and Cover).
Since her appointment, she has voted free on civil rights 71% of the time and 68% of the time. As the numbers show, Justice Sotomayor is one of the more liberal justices, as she votes this way most of the time. Locally, it scores 61 in civil rights cases and scores 62 in First Amendment cases (Segal and Cover).
Her voting record since her appointment has been a liberal vote of 72% on civil rights issues and 68% on First Amendment issues (InsideGov). Assuming the trends shown here continue, I can predict the judges' decision.
CONCLUSION
The Court has held that slogans on license plates, association in clubs and participation in parades are all cases where the speaker's autonomy has been infiltrated. The Court can then turn to the question of whether or not CADA is a burden on the free exercise of religion. Smith would not apply because I believe the Court will find that CADA is neither neutral nor generally applicable.
An additional argument for strict supervision is found in the Smith case, where the Court introduced hybrid rights. Under this idea, whenever a claim of free exercise is made in conjunction with another protected right, strict scrutiny will occur. I believe that the Court will not apply the O'Brien standard of rational basic scrutiny because of the abundant evidence that strict scrutiny should apply.
Under strict scrutiny, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that CADA is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. CADA is also not narrowly tailored, which is the second step in the rigorous scrutiny analysis. For these reasons, I do not believe that CADA will be able to survive rigorous scrutiny.
I believe the court will find that CADA is content-based and discriminatory in application because it only affects a certain class of people: believers. I think the Court will not overlook this and will treat it with the weight it deserves. It is also argued that in the light of the interest of preserving these two constitutional rights, the Public Spaces Act should be considered under strict scrutiny.
In summary, and in light of the above analysis, I predict that the Court will find in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop by a vote of 5 to 4 applying strict scrutiny to find that CADA is a content-based obligation which it is neither neutral nor generally applicable. It is possible that the Court will find in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop but for different reasons. Supreme Court Database.” Supreme Court Database, University of Washington Law, 2015, supremecourtdatabase.org/analysis.php.
