The U.S. Supreme Court returns to the bench on Oct. 7 to start a new term that includes cases on transgender rights, guns, pornography, flavored vapes, and more.
In the coming months, the court will hear a case that will examine the constitutionality of state bans on medical treatments for transgender minors. It will hear two others that could radically reshape regulations on ghost guns and redefine corporate accountability in the tech industry. And it may confront urgent election-related litigation after Nov. 5 that tests the limits of the Electoral Count Act, depending on the aftermath of the presidential election.
The new term begins as the Supreme Court is grappling with significant internal challenges and public scrutiny, as concerns about undisclosed gifts to certain Justices and ideologically divided decisions on some of the nation’s most divisive issues has raised questions about transparency and impartiality within the institution. A July 2024 survey from the Pew Research Center found that 47% of Americans express a favorable opinion of the court following a consequential term, in which it granted presidents broad criminal immunity for some actions in office, preserved access to an abortion pill, and upheld a law that prevents those under a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing guns.
Here are some of the key cases coming up this term.
Tennessee’s ban on gender transition care for minors
Perhaps the highest-profile case already on the docket, United States v. Skrmetti could have significant implications for transgender rights across the country. The case focuses on a Tennessee law that prohibits certain medical treatments for transgender minors, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries.
The case marks the first time the Justices will weigh in on the constitutionality of statewide bans of this nature, which have proliferated in approximately two dozen Republican-led states in recent years.
The Tennessee law, known as SB1, has already stirred considerable controversy, with the Biden Administration and various advocacy groups arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has contended that the law discriminates against transgender individuals by allowing these medical interventions for other medical conditions while categorically banning them for gender dysphoria. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti defends the law as a necessary measure to protect minors from potentially irreversible treatments that may be based on “uncertain” benefits.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case comes at a time of increasing legal fragmentation regarding transgender healthcare, with different federal courts issuing conflicting rulings. Legal analysts suggest that the Supreme Court’s ruling could establish a landmark precedent not only on transgender medical care but also on broader issues of civil rights, including access to public facilities and participation in sports.
Ghost gun regulations
In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Justices will hear a case that challenges the Biden Administration’s regulation of ghost guns—untraceable firearms that can be assembled from kits and lack serial numbers.
The case represents a critical moment in the ongoing debate over gun control, as the regulation was designed to combat the increasing prevalence of these weapons in crime scenes across the country. The rule, implemented in 2022 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), expands the definition of a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It mandates that unfinished parts, such as gun frames and receivers, must be serialized and licensed, ensuring that they can be traced. The regulation also requires background checks for the sale of these components.
However, it has faced pushback from gun owners and manufacturers, who argue that it overreaches the authority granted to the ATF and violates the original intent of federal firearm laws. A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down the regulation. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor contended that the definition of a firearm does not encompass kits and parts, arguing that such interpretations should be the purview of Congress, not the judiciary.
The ruling raised alarms among some law enforcement and advocacy groups, which fear that a Supreme Court decision against the regulation could lead to an influx of ghost guns, complicating efforts to address gun violence.
Age verification for pornographic websites
The Supreme Court is set to determine the legality of a Texas law mandating age verification for users of pornographic websites. The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, could have significant implications for First Amendment rights, as the state law, enacted in June 2023, aims to restrict minors from accessing sexually explicit content by requiring users to provide personal information for age verification.
Proponents of the law, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argue that it is necessary to protect minors from exposure to harmful material. They assert that requiring age verification ensures that only adults can access pornography, thus addressing a pressing public safety concern. However, critics, including the Free Speech Coalition, contend that the law infringes upon the constitutional rights of adults, creating a chilling effect on access to protected speech. They argue that the measure is overbroad and fails to account for the privacy risks associated with submitting personal information online.
Read More: How an Ordained Rabbi Ended Up Owning the World’s Most Famous Porn Company
A federal district judge initially blocked the law, citing concerns that it imposes unnecessary restrictions on adult access to constitutionally protected material. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later permitted the law to take effect, ruling that the age verification requirement is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing pornography. However, dissenting opinions within the panel highlighted the law’s potential to limit access to protected speech for adults, raising questions about its constitutionality.
Flavored vapes and e-cigarettes
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, a case that will evaluate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to deny marketing authorization for flavored e-cigarettes produced by Triton Distribution. The case comes amid ongoing concerns about the popularity of vaping among young people and the agency’s efforts to regulate products that might appeal to minors.
At the heart of the dispute is the FDA’s rejection of applications for sweet-flavored e-liquids, including varieties such as “Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.” The agency contends that these products pose a “serious, well-documented risk” of enticing young users, contributing to alarming rates of e-cigarette use among adolescents. In 2020, nearly 20% of high school students reported using e-cigarettes, with flavored options being the overwhelming choice, the FDA said in court documents. They have argued that companies failed to demonstrate that the benefits of their products for adult smokers outweighed the risks of underage consumption.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously sided with Triton, declaring that the FDA had acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by imposing new requirements for studies on smoking cessation that had not been communicated prior to the companies’ applications.
The implications of the case could extend beyond flavored e-cigarettes. The court’s decision may clarify the FDA’s authority under the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which mandates that new tobacco products be proven “appropriate for the protection of the public health.”
Meta’s appeal in Cambridge Analytica case
The Justices will hear Meta’s appeal in a high-stakes class action lawsuit related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which has drawn significant scrutiny over the misuse of user data. The high court will review a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed the lawsuit, spearheaded by Amalgamated Bank on behalf of shareholders, to proceed.
Investors allege that Meta misled them about the risks associated with Facebook user data being improperly accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The lawsuit claims that inadequate disclosures led to substantial drops in Meta’s stock price in 2018, following revelations that the personal information of approximately 87 million Facebook users had been exploited without consent.
The litigation, initiated in 2018, accuses Meta and its executives of violating the Securities Exchange Act by making false statements regarding data security risks that had already materialized. In its defense, Meta argues that the 9th Circuit’s ruling sets a troubling precedent that could require public companies to disclose historical incidents that do not pose current risks. Meta has already faced penalties, including a $5 billion fine and a $725 million settlement related to user privacy violations.
NVIDIA case on securities fraud standards
In NVIDIA v. E. Ohman J, the Supreme Court will consider a case that challenges the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of fraudulent intent in shareholder class action lawsuits. The core of the dispute revolves around allegations that Nvidia misrepresented its dependence on the volatile cryptocurrency mining market, leading to significant financial losses for investors. Shareholders claim that the company’s CEO made misleading statements about demand for its products, failing to disclose crucial information that could indicate a risk of mismanagement.
At the heart of the case is the legal standard for establishing “scienter,” or the intent to deceive, which requires plaintiffs to present specific facts demonstrating that a defendant acted with knowledge or reckless disregard. Nvidia, whose computer chips the world relies on to make AI systems, argues that the Ninth Circuit improperly accepted vague allegations from unnamed former employees and speculative analyses from hired experts, rather than concrete evidence of fraudulent intent. The company contends that such reliance on speculation undermines the stringent requirements set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
A ruling in favor of Nvidia could reinforce higher standards for investor claims and potentially reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, while a decision that supports the Ninth Circuit’s stance might embolden shareholders to pursue more claims based on less concrete evidence, experts say.
