5 Supreme Court cases to watch on the current docket

As the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court begin their latest nine-month term, the biggest case on the docket could be one that’s currently not scheduled. The 2024 Election may well become an early focus of the Court as lawsuits about the decision are almost certain, regardless of who wins. And with public opinion about the Court at what could be all-time lows, that could put the controversial judicial body under an even more intense microscope than it has faced in recent months. With the election still a month away, however, the six conservative and three liberal Justices will focus, for now, on the docket before them. And there’s plenty to debate, all touching on hot-button issues, ranging from transgender care to gun control to free speech. A potential ban for gender-affirming care (United States v. Skrmetti) For the first time, Justices will examine state laws that ban gender-affirming care for minors. This hearing will revolve around a Tennessee law that prevents teens and minors from accessing puberty blockers. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to go into effect roughly a year ago. The state maintains the Constitution does not grant anyone the right to demand “medical interventions for children that a state has found to be unproven and excessively risky.” The Biden administration, however, argues the law discriminates against transgender people and that the 6th Circuit’s ruling conflicts with other appeals courts around the country. Keeping the law in place, it argues, “would needlessly leave transgender adolescents and their families in limbo and inflict particularly acute harm in Tennessee and other States where these laws have taken effect.” Ghost gun regulation (Garland v. VanDerStok) In 2022, a federal rule went into effect that required homemade kits that can be assembled into firearms to include serial numbers and require background checks. Last year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that rule, saying it was an “unlawful agency action.” The Biden administration, along with attorneys general from more than a dozen states, is worried about people using weapons that cannot be traced by law enforcement officials and is seeking to have that Appeals Court opinion overturned, citing public safety concerns. At issue is whether the kits can be counted as firearms as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the Appeals court decision would allow “a flood of untraceable ghost guns” nationwide. Medicare reimbursement rates (Advocate Christ Medical Center, et al. v. Becerra) More than 200 hospitals have asked the Supreme Court to overrule a lower-court ruling that lets the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reimburse them at a lower rate for treating a high proportion of low-income patients. That could impact more than $4 billion in federal funds and would follow a 2022 Supreme Court decision on the Medicare program that reduced payments to “disproportionate share hospitals” (DSH, or those that treat a high number of low-income patients, who are often in worse health and more costly to treat). “By reducing compensation to hospitals already operating on the brink of insolvency, improperly suppressed DSH payments leave patients served by safety net hospitals in peril,” the petition reads. The status of flavored vapes (FDA v. Waged and White Lion Investments dba Triton Distribution) Flavored vapes are at the center of this case, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s rejection of two companies’ applications to begin selling those products. The Biden administration asked the Court to take up the case after a lower court ruled the FDA had failed to follow legal procedures in denying those applications. The FDA says it hasn’t unilaterally banned flavored e-cigarettes, but it has not approved any applications for the products yet, saying applicants must clear a higher legal bar since the product poses a “substantial risk to youth.” Age restrictions and online porn (Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton) Several states have enacted age restriction laws to access websites that feature pornography, but a Texas law is the focus of these hearings. The Free Speech Coalition (FSC), which represents the adult entertainment industry, says age restriction laws violate the free speech protections porn studios enjoy. The FSC managed to successfully challenge the law at the district court level, but the Fifth Circuit overturned that ruling on appeal. This is a case that could have broad impact, not just on porn sites, but also social media that allows adult and sexually graphic images. It also could reverse previous rulings that gave more weight to the free speech rights of adults than any potential harm to minors.