As detailed in PFAW Foundation’s report Rise of the Corporate Court , the Roberts Court has been routinely and consistently bending the law and the Constitution to elevate the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals. To borrow a metaphor from Chief Justice Roberts, when corporate power over employees, consumers, and the American population at large is at risk, the umpire is biased. Corporations win, people lose.
In January, this judicial tilting of the scales of justice to favor corporate America reached a new height with Citizens United.
So what’s in store for the Supreme Court term that begins next Monday? While we will not know for sure until the opinions are issued, we are beginning to see some of the cases that may become important. For instance, the Court earlier today added a number of new cases to its docket, including three focusing on the rights of corporations in what the New York Times  characterizes as “unusual settings.”
In two of the cases, the justices will consider how the state secrets privilege, which can allow the government to shut down litigation by invoking national security, applies in a contract dispute between the Navy and military contractors hired to create a stealth aircraft.
In the third case, the justices agreed to decide whether corporations have privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. ...
The privacy case [FCC v. AT&T] will consider whether a provision of the Freedom of Information Act concerning "personal privacy" applies to corporations. ...
AT&T seeks to block the release of documents it provided to the FCC, which conducted an investigation into claims of overcharges by the company in a program to provide equipment and services to schools. The documents were sought under the freedom of information law by a trade association representing some of AT&T's competitors.
AT&T relied on an exemption to the law for law enforcement records that could "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." ...
The federal government, represented by Solicitor General Kagan, urged the Supreme Court to reject the argument that the exemption "protects the so-called 'privacy' of inanimate corporate entities."
This case will turn on the language and legislative history of the FOIA statute, as well as prior Court rulings. Court watchers will be looking out for any efforts by the Roberts Court to use this case, as it did in Citizens United, to aggrandize corporate power far beyond anything contemplated by the law or even the parties themselves.