How this headline may connect to industries in Indiana. Technical scores are below — click any ? for what a metric means.
Supreme Court Rejects Political Messaging of Anti-Abortion Protestors’ Petition for a Hearing June 15, 2026 When an upset litigant claims that he/she will be taking a case to the Supreme Court, the odds are stacked “big time” against the High Court hearing that matter.Since the 1920s, SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) has used the writ of certiorari to determine which cases it will hear.This gives SCOTUS discretion to decide which cases will be put on its docket.If SCOTUS did not have such discretion, it would be overwhelmed with deciding which cases to hear all the time and not spend much time on deciding landmark decisions, its major function.Currently, SCOTUS receives between 7,000-8,000 petitions for certiorari each year.However, it only issues signed opinions for about just 60-80 cases.Do the math.SCOTUS grants cert (certiorari) in less than 1% of the appeals it gets asked to review.https://Supremecourt.gov+3 Although most law school students and practicing attorneys have heard the comment of the late Justice Felix Frankfurter that “denial of cert doesn’t mean a damn,” in the real world of legal litigation, that is not true for the contesting parties.To get cert granted, at least 4 of SCOTUS’ 9 Justices must vote to accept the case.There are many many reasons for less than 4 SCOTUS Justices to deny cert.Sometimes, they feel the case is not “ripe,” or ready to be adjudicated.Other times, the Justices want to see if this case really presents a conflict among state and federal courts dealing with the issues presented.If they don’t believe such a conflict has occurred or is not a major one, they will not grant cert.In other situations, the Justices believe that the matter presented has already been properly decided by lower courts.In addition, some Justices, on either the liberal or conservative side of the Court, don’t want to take up a case for fear that if the issues at stake are litigated before the High Court, previous decisions that they agreed with may be overturned.Sometimes, at least 4 Justices want to wait for “better” facts in another case before taking up an issue.Many times, the Justices believe the issue is a “hot button” one that they don’t want to take up in the present climate, and basically, want to “kick it down the road.” One of the major functions of Supreme Court law clerks, the top graduates of elite law schools chosen to work for a Justice for a year, is to review these numerous cert petitions and decide just which ones their Justice would want to hear.In addition to the above reasons, these clerks select very few such cases on which to grant cert, because most of the petitions presented are often frivolous and their Justices should not be wasting time on irrelevant matters.In most cases, SCOTUS just writes that cert has been denied and does not state the reasons it decided for coming down that way.Sometimes, one or more Justices write that cert should have been granted and spell out the reasons they went against the SCOTUS cert-denying majority.Let’s look at a case in which cert was denied in a “hot button” issue– abortion.On June 15, 2026, SCOTUS refused to review whether an Indiana high school violated a student’s free speech rights by prohibiting political messaging in an ad for an anti-abortion club.https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-snubs-anti-abortion-flyer-case-leaving-school-political-speech-off-docket/ A freshman, identified as E.D., sought to hang flyers for a local chapter of the national organization Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School in the fall of 2021.However, a dispute over a political photo included in the advertisement led the club to be shut down.In a mockup provided to administrators at this Indiana public school, E.D.’s flyers included photos of students in front of the U.S.Supreme Court holding signs that read, “I reject abortion,” “Defund Planned Parenthood,” and “I am the pro-life generation.” https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-snubs-anti-abortion-flyer-case-leaving-school-political-speech-off-docket/ Noblesville High School objected to the political messaging.It stated that its walls were a place to advertise student clubs, not a public forum for speech.The high school’s assistant principal told E.D.that these flyers could only contain the name of the club, its meeting location, the time, and the date.A faculty sponsor also stated that these were the only statements E.D.could put up on her fliers.A high school dean also informed E.D.and her mother of the same requirements.High school administrators claimed that E.D.and her mother were trying to make an end-run around the rules.They further argued that E.D.’s mother’s participation in two of the club’s meetings in less than a month brought into question whether the organization was student-driven.Noblesville revoked the club’s approval for the remainder of the semester.It stated that E.D.could apply again in the new year.and her mother then sued.They claimed the school and its administrators violated their First Amendment freedom of speech rights.https://www.courthouseews.com/supreme-court-snubs-anti-abortion-flyer-case-leaving-school-political-speech-off-docket/ The lower courts sided with Noblesville High.They, correctly,IMHO, used a four-decade-old precedent, the 1988 “Hazelwood School District v.Kuhlmeier” opinion.In that SCOTUS decision concerning the regulation of school-sponsored publications, the High Court allowed school administrators some control over keeping out content that might be perceived as the opinion of the school.https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-snubs-anti-abortion-flyer-case-leaving-school-political-speech-off-docket/ While the rest of the Court correctly denied cert in the Noblesville High case, hard- right winger Justice Alito authored a solo dissent.He stated that there is a “critical distinction between private and government speech, because the free speech clause of the First Amendment constrains censorship of government speech only.” He claimed that “courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech.” https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-snubs-anti-abortion-flyer-case-leaving-school-political-speech-off-docket/ No, Justice Alito.If the school had allowed this speech by the student and her mother to be put up on the board with all its attacks on particular views, going after Planned Parenthood and being anti-abortion, it would look like the government was endorsing these views, using the school as its vehicle.The government must stay neutral in endorsing views including being pro or anti-choice.Only presenting the place where such a club could meet, at what time, and the date of such a meeting can pass constitutional muster, as the school officials correctly realized.If a pro-choice group had put up similar pictures strongly endorsing its views, Noblesville or any similar public high school would have had to remove these pictures and shut down its club as well.In this blog post, I showed one of the actions the Supreme Court takes–denying certiorari and a dissenting voice in that matter.As full opinions in the Supreme Court come down, as the 2025-2026 term winds down, I will discuss and analyze what I deem to be the major cases and their impact on our nation.