The Supreme Court decided to grant review to further provisions of the Arizona law that penalizes illegal aliens aka undocumented workers. Most of the law is prob/ invalid b/c Congress has exclusive control over immigration law. There are a host of lesser issues at play. The New York Times noted that this contentious case involving state/federal powers and crass politics, the Obamacare plan (portions of it), and redestricting that could create four more Latino based congressional districts (meaning four districts would most likely be added to Democratic control) are all in the works.
Any of these cases raises so many important and defining issues. All three will likely be announced during the heat of the political campaign. They aren't abstract legal decisions. People feel passionately about all sides of these cases. The candidates will have to prepare for likely outcomes and provide leadership or accept a defeat just as the campaign will be at its most volatile.
The New Deal under FDR was the last time such sweeping decisions were on the table at one time. The Supreme Court was very conservative. It routinely held that child labor laws and food purity laws were unconstitutional. The US Constitution provides for a supreme Court but the details are sketchy. Lawyers are not required. Nine is not mandated by the text. FDR went to the public and announced he would ask Congress to increase tne size of the court and pack it with New Deal friendly justices. He was directly challenging the Court. Evidently, nothing was ever said expressly. The country was poised to see what would happen. Maybe the Supreme Court would have 25 members now. Only over time did it become clear that the Court decided to change their theory of the constitution to embrace the New Deal. It is called the Switch in Time that Saved Nine.
I've read the pre and post switch social l egislation cases. As far as I remember, no justice ever admitted that there was a conscious change b/c of FDR.
Acadmics, reporters who cover the Court have no idea as to likely outcomes. Swing justices could go either way based on their past decisions.