As we approach a new term for the Supreme Court, issues concerning transgender rights, the regulation of elusive ‘ghost guns,’ and the contentious subject of the death penalty take center stage. It’s unmissable that these politically-loaded topics emerge amidst nationwide debate during the election season. Notably, the Court may also have to tackle electoral disputes, given the ever-changing nature of the political theatre.
The Supreme Court justices find themselves under the scrutiny of eyes increasingly skeptical of the institution’s rulings and operations. Calls for reform, specifically for the limitation of judicial terms to 18 years, are gaining traction from many corners. It is no surprise that Democrats like President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris enthusiastically back this populist notion, hoping to change the rules sharply leaning towards the conservative end.
The docket for the upcoming term appears somewhat lighter than the previous terms that included formative decisions on presidential immunity, abortion, guns, and affirmative action. This can be viewed as a strategic move by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative dominance, potentially creating space to accommodate significant electoral cases springing up in the coming weeks.
Any potential involvement of the Court in electoral disputes significantly depends upon the closeness of the results and the extent to which the Court’s intervention could influence the outcome. Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed numerous appeals from President Trump questioning the legitimacy of the election he lost to Biden, possibly setting a precedent.
Heavily reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election, in which the Supreme Court effectively tipped the scales to favor Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. When they convene next Monday, they will maintain the illusion of cordiality, with handshakes and pleasantries. Beneath the surface, though, tension and contention brews.
The Court’s commitment to maintaining its dignity and grace is showcased by their ongoing efforts for ethical improvement. In the recent past, two justices expressed the need to reinforce the new judicial code of ethics, which is still under development to solidify an enforcement mechanism.
There are numerous high-stakes cases awaiting attention of the justices just around the corner. Among them is an objection to the Biden administration’s ambitious approach to control untraceable ‘ghost guns,’ increasingly found at crime scenes. This leads one to recoil in disbelief when remembering that the conservatives, securely holding a 6-3 majority, overruled a gun regulation banning bump stocks – accessories that mimic the firing rate of machine guns.
Following the ‘ghost guns’ dispute, the Supreme Court is scheduled to delve into the enigmatic case of Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip, seeking freedom from death row. As a rare occurrence, the prosecutors concede to errors in trial proceedings leading to Glossip’s conviction, further muddying the waters.
Among the most debated cases on the docket this term is on transgender rights, particularly on bans surrounding gender-affirming care. One must wait until December, perhaps, to witness these crucial arguments that can shape law and acceptance for the transgender community. The case brings the focus on a Tennessee law that restricts the provision of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to transgender minors.
In late fall, another case arises from the adult entertainment industry, seeking reversal of a Texas law. This law compels pornographic websites to authenticate the age of their users, which has stirred up a storm in the industry and attracted diverging views.
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court could revisit a legal concept known as nondelegation. The case, presented by the administration to the Court, stems from the methodology the Federal Communications Commission employs while allocating funds to various public services.
This legal argument, though dormant for nearly 90 years, resonates with several conservative justices. The revival of the nondelegation doctrine could limit the authority that Congress is capable of bestowing upon federal agencies. This measure has been the subject of intense debate in the light of increasing power concentration.
As these impending issues crop up, the Supreme Court finds itself navigating a turbulent sea of diverse challenges. It stands to recognize that these decisions will hold immense significance and inevitably shape the country for decades to come. Striking the right balance between ensuring justice and maintaining public trust will be the crux of their mandate.