Ties are bad for baseball, and they’re bad for the United States Supreme Court.

The baseball gods smiled down on the long-suffering fans of the Chicago Cubs and, to a lesser extent, the Cleveland Indians, with both teams finally getting back to the World Series. While the Cubs prevailed, they did so at Cleveland’s stadium.

That’s because the American League team had home-field advantage — a legacy of the controversial 2002 Major League Baseball All-Star game that ended in a tie. After that debacle, the league implemented a rule awarding home-field advantage in the World Series to the team winning the All-Star game that year, giving the teams a concrete incentive to play for victory.

It’s too bad there are no court gods to intervene on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been short a justice since the February death of Antonin Scalia. Republicans controlling Congress have refused to fulfill their constitutional obligations and vote on President Barack Obama’s undoubtedly qualified nominee, Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, somehow having the nerve to espouse a theory that the appointment should be left up to the next president, a theory with no basis in the U.S. Constitution.

Understandably, having only eight sitting justices has made the court skittish about taking on cases that could split them right down the middle. But it hasn’t shied completely away from controversy. Last month it agreed to hear a case involving 17-year-old transgender student Gavin Grimm.

In G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the school board on behalf of Mr. Grimm, arguing that the board’s decision to deny him the use of a bathroom that conforms with his gender identity violates Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972, which bans sex discrimination by schools. A district court dismissed the Title IX complaint, but it was reversed on appeal.

The court will also take on a key employment practices case involving the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the scope of its subpoena power.

The case, McLane Co. v. EEOC, stems from the agency’s investigation of a sex discrimination charge filed by a former worker who was terminated after she failed to pass a strength test three times after returning from maternity leave.

The EEOC issued a subpoena after the company refused to provide information about employee terminations related to the test and personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers. A lower court held that some of the information sought was not relevant to the EEOC’s investigation, a decision partly reversed on appeal.

The Supreme Court will now decide if a district court’s determination on whether to enforce an agency subpoena should be reviewed “de novo,” meaning without deference to the lower court’s determination.

The case has important implications for employers who are investigated by the EEOC.

I’m rooting for the Supreme Court to get back to full strength as quickly as possible after the election so the justices can focus on deciding critical cases without visions of potential ties dancing in their heads.