The justices have left the building, but before you know it, they'll be back. Although there are no potential blockbusters like same-sex marriage on next term's docket yet, they will court plenty of controversy as they revisit hot-button issues including abortion, affirmative action, religion, campaign finance, and the president's recess appointment power. The court has granted review in 42 cases so far for the term that will begin on October 7. Here is a quick look at some of the key cases:

  • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning: The justices will examine the scope of the president's power under the recess appointment clause in a challenge to three recess appointments to the labor board.
  • Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action: Does a Michigan constitutional amendment prohibiting all race- and sex-based preferences in public education violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause?
  • McCullen v. Coakley: The court will examine the constitutionality of a Massa­chusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around driveways and entrances of abortion clinics.
  • Town of Greece v. Galloway: Does the town board's practice of opening its meetings with predominantly Christian prayers violate the First Amendment's establishment clause?
  • Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action: The justices will decide whether disparate-impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act.
  • EPA v. EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation: Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit err in invalidating a major Environ­mental Protection Agency rule regulating cross-state pollution under the Clean Air Act?
  • McCutcheon v. Federal Election Com­mis­sion: The court is asked to decide whether federal biennial limits on what individuals can contribute to candidates, parties, and political action committees violate the First Amendment.
  • Paroline v. U.S.: Must the government or a child pornography victim prove a nexus between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm to recover restitution under the 1994 Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act?

A version of this story appeared in The National Law Journal, a sibling of Corporate Counsel.