This text appeared in the ‘Top Story’ email newsletter sent on Oct. 5, 2024.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear its first oral argument of the 2024-2025 term on Monday and has already said that it will take on a host of interesting cases. Guns, gender, and environmental regulation are just some of the topics coming to the court this term— presenting opportunities for the justices to hand down significant changes to U.S. law.It comes just months after the court released controversial decisions on administrative law, Jan. 6, and presidential immunity that fueled ongoing scrutiny of the court from Democratic politicians. As the court wrestles with complex legal issues, it will likely continue to face calls for reform and political pressure more generally.
Just after the Supreme Court’s last opinion in July, President Joe Biden proposed term limits for the justices and a constitutional amendment on immunity. Congressional Democrats have similarly pressed for reform, including a binding ethics code, but Democrats’ proposals could face review by a predominantly conservative slate of justices.
Perhaps the biggest case last term was Trump v. United States, which established that presidents enjoy a tiered system of immunity from criminal prosecution. That decision prompted reconsideration of former President Donald Trump’s ongoing election interference case in D.C. and left open the possibility that the case could make its way back up to the court on appeal.
Special Counsel Jack Smith signaled a complicated battle over immunity on Oct. 2 when Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed his oversized motion on the issue. Besides another immunity appeal, appeals based on statutory grounds and the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment could make their way through the appeals system and potentially the Supreme Court.
Another controversial decision last term overturned the longstanding administrative law precedent known as Chevron deference—a decision that could impact the way the court handles cases this coming term. So far, the court has accepted administrative law cases related to regulation of water pollution, nuclear waste removal, and e-cigarettes.
Justice Elena Kagan warned that by overturning Chevron in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court “disdains restraint, and grasps for power.” Others like Dan Greenberg, general counsel at Competitive Enterprise Institute general, a libertarian think tank, saw the decision as maintaining the nation’s separation of powers.
He told The Epoch Times that “Loper Bright really indicates a stronger and stronger desire by the Supreme Court to instruct every other part of government to stay in its lane.”
Erin Hawley, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, said at a recent Heritage Foundation event that she thought that “post-Loper Bright that San Francisco will win” in its challenge to the way the Environmental Protection Agency is regulating water pollution.
One of the Supreme Court’s first oral arguments, on Tuesday, will focus on whether an administrative agency—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—erred in interpreting federal law to prohibit “ghost guns,” or those that were built privately and without serial numbers. That same week, the court is scheduled to hear Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case focused on due process and the death penalty.
Immigration and border security are expected to come back to the court with several cases and could dovetail in discussions of firearms. On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to address the Mexican government’s claims that gun companies engaged in business practices, such as failing to impose sales restrictions, that benefitted cartels.
Public health has been a big theme in cases accepted by the court so far with questions about how the law should balance liberty with laws aimed at protecting young people. The e-cigarettes and ghost guns cases have seen the federal government expressing concern about these tools’ impacts on children, while Texas’ and Tennessee’s governments have similarly worried about how porn and gender-related procedures impact minors.
After not hearing a gender-related case last term, the court decided to take up a a blockbuster in U.S. v. Skrmetti, wherein the Biden administration is challenging Tennessee’s ban on minors undergoing gender-related medical procedures. The case could set major precedent on gender and change how the American legal system treats sex discrimination and gender under the equal protection clause.
Texas, meanwhile, is attempting to keep its porn site age-verification law, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The case touches on an age-old debate about censorship and could help determine how courts review states’ attempts to address the proliferation of online pornography.
