A new term of the Supreme Court ushers in an array of significant topics: transgender rights, the supervision of ‘ghost guns’, and the debate on the death penalty, serving as integral pieces of their forthcoming docket. This latest term carries more weight as it coalesces during an election period, further underscored by the constant specter of the court’s potential engagement with electoral controversies. As the justices reconvene, they are confronted with dwindling public faith in their institution and a popular proposal to restrict their tenure to a maximum of 18 years, an idea endorsed by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Interestingly, this term’s docket seems less congested with high-impact cases compared to recent ones where discussions ranged from issues such as presidential impunity, abortion rights, gun control, to affirmative action rulings that were steered by the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. This lighter workload ostensibly provides room for the incorporation of electoral issues, should these emerge in the run-up or immediate aftermath of the November 5 elections featuring Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
The nature and extent of the court’s involvement in electoral matters are largely dependent on how closely contested the results are and whether its intercession could sway the final outcome. Historical records demonstrate the court’s reluctance towards intervening in electoral matters as observed in the repeated rejections of Trump and his affiliates’ challenges to the 2020 election results, which were eventually won by Biden.
Still fresh in the collective memory is the landmark decision approximately 25 years ago when the Supreme Court effectively determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The justices, when they congregate on Monday, following the mandate of federal law, will maintain the traditional customary handshake with their peers synonymous with this occasion.
When they appear, emerging from behind an immaculately cleaned crimson curtain, there might well be an atmosphere of joviality and conviviality with subtle exchanges and shared intimacies. Nonetheless, beneath this portico of cordiality lurks unresolved angst, unquieted by the passage of time. During the previous summer recess, there were fissures evident when two justices expressed the need for a more rigorous ethics code, an area that currently lacks actionable enforcement mechanisms.
A past precedent of this tension is illustrated by the rather startling leak of a memo that detailed the court’s stance on presidential immunity. Additionally, a couple of years ago, an early draft overturning a pivotal abortion ruling was made public before its official release. This new term too begins with a series of cases demanding close scrutiny overshadowing any semblance of easy camaraderie at the court.
Starting Tuesday, the court will address a challenge to the Biden administration’s move to regulate ‘ghost guns’, weapons known for their difficulty in tracing and that have been increasingly linked with crime scenes. The Supreme Court steps in following a ruling from a conservative circuit court that deemed the regulation invalid.
Reflecting on the previous term, it was noted that a 6-3 conservative majority overruled a gun control law that had previously outlawed bump stocks, a firearm accessory that enhances certain weapons’ fire rates, making them comparable to automatic guns. Notably, bump stocks were implicated in the bloodiest mass shooting in modern U.S. history that occurred in Las Vegas.
Immediately following the debate on gun control, the court will pivot to another significant case, centering on the pleas of a death row inmate seeking his release. What sets this particular case apart is the prosecutorial admission of errors during the trial that led to his conviction and subsequent death sentence.
The court’s roster this term also includes a potent case on transgender rights, primarily focusing on the legislation across different states that directly impacts gender-affirming care. The case is predicated on various restrictions imposed on healthcare access for transgender individuals, participation in school sports, bathroom preferences, and drag performances, particularly in states with Republican leadership.
On the flip side, Democratic-led states have extended legal protections for transgender individuals. Additionally, the Supreme Court has blocked the enforcement of fresh federal regulations aimed at safeguarding transgender students’ rights. The high-stakes case currently pending before the court centers on a Tennessee law that limits the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors – a law emulated by roughly half the states in the country.
Later in the term, one of the cases on the docket is an appeal stemming from the adult entertainment sector. The case challenges a Texas law mandating explicit sites to validate their users’ ages. Moreover, only about half the court’s calendar for the term is occupied, so plenty of room remains for last-minute additions of more profound cases.
Among potential inclusions stands a movement initiated by conservative-led states and legal institutions advocating for more regulatory shackles on federal bodies. The immediate point of focus is the Federal Communications Commission’s funding mechanism for providing telecom services to underserved rural areas, less privileged individuals and expanding broadband access for educational institutions.
An appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court regarding this case could provide an avenue to breathe new life into an almost forgotten legal doctrine known as nondelegation. This dormant principle, of not having witnessed use in voiding legislation in nearly nine decades, might be reawakened as several conservative justices have previously indicated their inclination towards curbing the degree of authority Congress can hand off to federal agencies.