The Supreme Court has an unusual number of interesting cases on its docket this week, in addition to the most important case of the term coming up on Wednesday morning, King v. Burwell. Although most of the public attention has been on King, the Court hasn’t shied away from other significant topics.

On Monday, the Court begins with Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Like a couple other states, Arizona gives the power to draw legislative districts to an appointed commission. But the Elections Clause of the Constitution gives the legislature the power to prescribe and regulate elections subject to amendment by Congress. It will be a battle of former Solicitor Generals, with Paul Clement representing the Arizona state legislature and Seth Waxman arguing for the redistricting commission.

Next, the Court will hear Ohio v. Clark, about how the Confrontation Clause applies to an individual who is concerned about suspected child abuse. This will be of interest mostly to lawyers who practice criminal law and anyone who enjoys Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.

On Tuesday the Court begins with another significant case centering around the Fourth Amendment, City of Los Angeles v. Patel. Do hotels have an expectation of privacy in hotel guest registry records if the law requires them to be retained and open to inspection by police? And can Fourth Amendment challenges be brought facially, or can they be brought as-applied? After that, the Court will hear an AEDPA case.

As I mentioned, Wednesday will be devoted to King v. Burwell. As regular Bench Memos readers will remember, this is the case about Obamacare tax subsidies and whether they can be obtained on federally-established exchanges, or if they can only be obtained on exchanges “established by the State.” King is the only case on the Court’s docket for Wednesday. You can find a link to Carrie Severino’s panel on the case here, as well as her overview here. My previous pieces on King include a guide to King amicus briefs, a response to some of the attempts to link Yates to King, and a note about one of the government’s sillier arguments.