Washington D.C. – As the Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday, the agenda is filled with important and timely issues that have the potential to shape the country’s future. From transgender rights to gun regulations and the death penalty, the court’s decisions could have a significant impact on the American people. However, the looming possibility of the court’s intervention in election disputes adds an extra layer of tension and anticipation.
The justices are returning to the bench at a time when public confidence in the court is waning. This has led to widespread calls for limiting their terms to 18 years, a proposal that has gained support from Democratic President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the party’s White House nominee.
The court’s docket for the upcoming term is relatively lighter compared to previous years, which could allow for the addition of election-related cases if they arise before or after the November 5th election between Republican Donald Trump and Harris.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an interview with CBS News last month to promote her new memoir “Lovely One”, acknowledged the possibility of the court’s involvement in election disputes. “I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process. And so, the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary,” she said.
The potential for the court’s intervention in election disputes may depend on the outcome of the election and whether the justices’ involvement would sway the results. According to David Cole, the outgoing legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, the court may not want to get involved, but they may have to. This sentiment was echoed by the court’s rejection of multiple challenges from Trump and his allies to the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden. It has been nearly a quarter-century since the Supreme Court effectively decided the 2000 presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.
As the justices gather on Monday morning, they will exchange handshakes as they always do. They will then take their seats on the curved mahogany bench, with Chief Justice John Roberts in the center chair and his eight colleagues seated in order of seniority.
Despite the friendly atmosphere, tensions within the court have been simmering beneath the surface. Over the summer, Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson voiced their support for a tougher ethics code, which currently lacks a means of enforcement. The leak of a memo written by Roberts last winter outlining his approach to the court’s decision on presidential immunity was deemed “shocking” by Supreme Court lawyer Lisa Blatt at a recent Washington event. And two years ago, a draft decision overturning the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, was obtained by Politico.
Reflecting on her experience arguing before the court, Blatt said, “Something does feel broken,” adding that some justices “just seem visibly frustrated.”
The court’s docket for the upcoming term includes several important cases, starting with a challenge to the Biden administration’s attempt to regulate “ghost guns”, which are difficult to trace and have been used in increasing numbers at crime scenes. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the regulation. Last term, the court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 to strike down a gun regulation that banned bump stocks, an accessory that allows some weapons to fire at a rate comparable to machine guns. Bump stocks were used in the nation’s deadliest modern mass shooting in Las Vegas.
On the following day, the court will hear the latest twist in the case of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip’s long quest for freedom. This is a rare instance in which prosecutors are admitting to mistakes in Glossip’s trial, which led to his conviction and death sentence.
Perhaps the most high-profile case on the docket is a fight over transgender rights, specifically state bans on gender-affirming care. This case is expected to be argued in December. While Republican-led states have enacted various restrictions on healthcare for transgender individuals, school sports participation, bathroom usage, and drag shows, the Biden administration and Democratic-led states have extended protections for transgender people. Separately, the Supreme Court has prohibited the administration from enforcing a new federal regulation aimed at protecting transgender students. The case before the high court involves a Tennessee law that restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors, with about half of the states enacting similar restrictions.
Another case to watch for in the
