Legal professionals, political commentators and other Las Vegans have diverse predictions, hopes – and fears — for the new Supreme Court.

A key case for University of Nevada, Las Vegas Boyd School of Law Professor Leslie Griffin is Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, where “(the city) is claiming a free exercise right to discriminate against same-sex couples who want to be foster parents,” she says. Griffin also wrote an amicus brief in that Fulton case.

In the bigger picture, President Donald Trump’s impact on the court will be felt for decades, Griffins continues. “Usually, court watchers understand that the Court changes every time you add a justice. Trump has added three Justices to the Court, which is incredible given that President (Jimmy) Carter, e.g., never even got to nominate one justice.”

But Griffin is just as concerned about the religious backgrounds of a vast majority of the justices and how that will impact the way they vote on cases. “I am one of the few who think it should be controversial that (Chief Justice John) Roberts, and Justices (Clearance) Thomas, (Samuel) Alito, (Sonia) Sotomayor, (Brett) Kavanaugh, and (Amy Coney) Barrett are all Catholic, and (Neil) Gorsuch was raised Catholic,” she points out. “As a person raised Catholic, I believe there should be a lot more religious and nonreligious diversity on the Court, as that would reflect the population of the United States.”

Ruben Garcia, also a UNLV Boyd School of Law professor, sees more-subtle changes when it comes to landmark past precedents, such as the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion.

“In the last several years, we have had a number of attempts to get an abortion case to the Supreme Court. If not this year, then maybe next year we will see that (happen),” he predicts. “We have new justices, so will they uphold the decades-old precedent or overturn it? It is hard to see.”

Instead, Garcia says it is more likely the Supreme Court will give more power to the states to craft their own restrictions on abortion.

Likewise, Garcia doesn’t see the Court throwing out the entire Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional in the latest challenge to “Obamacare.” “I would find it surprising – even if the majority find (the individual mandate) unconstitutional – that they will go as far as to invalidate the whole law. But we have new justices, so we will have to see.”

Garcia predicts more religious cases, and more first amendment cases, going to the Supreme Court in the near future. More than simply watching the cases argued before the Supreme Court, the law professor says observers watch the “shadow docket,” where cases are briefed and argued in the lower courts. “The (Supreme) Court can step in and say (it is a constitutional violation). In these cases, it doesn’t have to be a full (panel of the judges) weighing in on it.”

Michael Green, a UNLV historian and professor, discussed the criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts that he has been reluctant to hear hot-button cases. In addition, some conservatives have been disappointed in Roberts’ swing votes, which have seemed to benefit the liberals in recent major decisions. These include a pre-election case involving the constitutionality of swing-state Pennsylvania’s voting law changes, which critics argued were designed to favor Democrats in the 2020 election. That decision, however, came down prior to Barrett’s voting tenure.

“Roberts … seems to try to steer the court away from being excessively doctrinaire conservative or taking on too much public controversy,” Green surmised. “But with the so-called liberal bloc down to three, and the possibility that there are five votes now to do whatever those five feel like doing, Roberts may have to adopt different tactics.”

Conservative radio show host Wayne Allyn Root is far less diplomatic in his critique of the chief justice: “In my opinion, John Roberts is a fraud,” he says.

The Texas attorney general’s post-election challenge case was turned down by the Supreme Court out of fear of retaliation by “the liberal mob,” maintains Root, who just wrote the new advice book, “Trump Rules.”

“The Supremes are clearly scared to death to fall victim to the liberal mob and negative media headlines. They’re scared of mobs of thugs showing up at their home in the middle of the night to burn them down,” the host and author says bluntly. “They’re scared of never being able to eat out in Washington, D.C. ever again — without liberal mobs screaming and spitting in their food. They’re scared of their children and grandchildren being beat up at school.”

Fear of being demonized in the press, and by one side, influences the nine justices, Root stresses.

“They’re scared of doing what’s right, but then being called a ‘racist’ by raving liberal radicals. This is why they turned down the Trump election case brought by the Texas AG, and 17 other states.”