by Ashley Matthews

Today marks the last day of the Supreme Court’s February sitting. With a docket dominated by civil rights issues, many are stating that this term could be even more significant than its predecessor. Here’s a rundown on a few cases affecting those in the public interest legal community:

Voting Rights

Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the Voting Rights Act – in particular, the preservation of Section 5, requiring all or part of 16 states to receive permission from the Department of Justice or a court before changing voting requirements or redrawing districts. Politico reported that while liberal justices argued “vigorously” in favor of  of preservation, conservative justices were “highly skeptical” and “sometimes downright hostile” to this notion. They also reported that Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito seemed likely to strike down the disputed Section 5. The Los Angeles Times noted that Justice Breyer “called racial discrimination in voting ‘an old disease’ that is still not fully cured,” while Justice Alito “called the law ‘a perpetuation of a racial entitlement'” and “not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”

Consumer Protection and Corporate Immunity

The Supreme Court also heard arguments today concerning whether the Federal Arbitration Act allows courts to invalidate arbitration agreements on the grounds that the federal substantive law of arbitrability doesn’t permit class arbitration of a federal claim. A Mother Jones article argues that this case could potentially give big corporations “free reign to write contracts that prevent consumers from ever holding them accountable for fraud, antitrust violations, or any other abuses of consumer and worker protection laws now on the books.” Read more about this stance here. You can also check out yesterday’s argument preview on the SCOTUSblog.

Constitutionality of Government Eavesdropping

Yesterday, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge brought by a group of human rights organizations and journalists against a 2008 federal law that broadened the government’s power to eavesdrop on international phone calls and emails. The New York Times reported that the decision was made by a 5-to-4 vote divided along ideological lines, and noted that the Supreme Court may never rule on the law’s constitutionality. The ACLU isn’t too happy about this – click the link to read Democracy Now’s transcript from an interview with the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case before the Supreme Court.

Warrantless DNA Collection

On Tuesday, the Court heard arguments from a Maryland case debating whether the 4th Amendment allows the state to collect DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. ABC News reports that the Court seems divided on the issue. The case stems from the 2009 arrest of Alonzo King on assault charges. After swabbing his cheek for DNA, the federal database came back with a hit on a 2003 rape of a 53-year-old woman. King was convicted and sentenced to life, but the case was overturned on the grounds that the DNA collection violated his 4th Amendment rights. The Washington Examiner reports that Justice Alito called the case “the most important criminal procedure case that we’ve heard in decades,” and noted that justices on both ends of the ideological spectrum had difficulty understanding how a DNA swab was any different from rummaging through someone’s house without a warrant. A ruling is expected before the summer recess.

For more continuing coverage on the Supreme Court, visit the SCOTUSblog.