Supreme Court Faces High-Stakes Cases: What to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is coming back in session after last term's jam-packed rulings on affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, LGBTQ+ rights and gerrymandered congressional maps.

The court will begin hearing oral arguments on Monday morning, kicking off the third SCOTUS term with a conservative supermajority. While the justices agreed to hear fewer cases than normal in the 2023-2024 term, they are expected to handle a number of high-profile cases that will center around gun rights, First Amendment rights and administrative law.

"The Court currently has 35 cases on its docket, and it will add more throughout the term," Alex Badas, a political scientist specializing in judicial politics, told Newsweek.

Badas said he anticipates the court will ultimately end up hearing between 60 and 75 cases but that, historically, the current list represents a decline from the early 2000s, when the court was routinely hearing 80 or more cases per term.

While many legal scholars will be tuning in to predict how the court might rule on these cases, a majority of Americans have signaled that they're unhappy with the high court.

Gallup's annual poll found that only 40 percent of Americans approve of the way that the justices are doing their jobs. The court's approval ratings have ticked down significantly from the beginning of the 2020-2021 term, when nearly 60 percent approved of the court.

Animosity comes amid the court's bombshell decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2022 and various ethics controversies that have marred conservative and liberal justices.

Here's a breakdown of what cases to watch out for this fall:

Second Amendment Rights: United States v. Rahimi

The Supreme Court will have the opportunity to clear up questions about its landmark ruling in Bruen this term and tighten the laws on gun ownership.

This case involves the indictment of Zackey Rahimi under a federal statute for gun possession while under a domestic violence restraining order.

Although Rahimi's appeal was denied at first, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to reconsider the case in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which struck down New York state's concealed carry law and expanded gun rights in at least six other states. Citing Bruen, the appeals court revised its opinion, finding the federal statute used to indict Rahmini unconstitutional. The U.S. solicitor general is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court's decision and allow the federal law to stand.

"More than a million acts of domestic violence occur in the United States every year, and the presence of a firearm increases the chance that violence will escalate to homicide," the Justice Department's petition reads.

Oral arguments are scheduled for November 7.

Administrative Law: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

In this case, the court is being asked to reconsider the long-standing precedent from the 1984 case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute.

What the doctrine in Chevron recognized was that Congress will always have difficulties agreeing on all the details of a piece of legislation, so it allowed for executive agencies to fill in the gaps.

Loper Bright Enterprises stems from an appeal made by a family-owned herring fishing company that operates in New England waters. The plaintiffs are arguing that the National Marine Fisheries Services lacks the authority to require fishermen to pay the salaries of federal compliance monitors. The case asks the justices to decide if the agency has the power to force compliance under the Chevron doctrine and to overturn the doctrine altogether.

Conservatives have long sought to overturn this precedent, which they argue gives the federal government too much authority. Among the biggest Chevron opponents are the billionaire Koch brothers, who were recently revealed to have had a long, secret friendship with Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Neil Gorsuch has also written opinions against the doctrine that have led many to believe he would vote to overturn it should a case come before the court.

"If that precedent is overturned, it will fundamentally change the way in which administrative agencies implement rules and regulations," Badas said. "A decision overturning Chevron will place greater limitations on agencies as they implement rules and regulations, and they will be limited to specifically the rules and regulations outlined in legislation passed by Congress.

"This could potentially be problematic because members of Congress are not subject matter experts in the same way agency employees are and when they craft legislation, they do not necessarily have the level of expertise required to create effective regulatory schemes."

Opioid Settlement: Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

The Supreme Court will review the landmark settlement between the Justice Department and the manufacturer of OxyContin in December.

The court has agreed to hear a challenge from the Biden administration that asks the justices to review the terms of the agreement made between the federal government and Purdue Pharma, the drug company owned by the Sackler family and that has been credited for contributing to the nation's opioid epidemic.

The question before the courts is whether federal bankruptcy laws allow the $6 billion settlement to include legal safeguards protecting members of the Sackler family, which has not filed for personal bankruptcy. Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019 after becoming drowned in legal debt from the thousands of lawsuits that accused OxyContin of playing a key role in the epidemic that caused more than 500,000 overdose deaths in two decades.

First Amendment Rights on Social Media: Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

These two cases, which will appear before the court on October 31, deal with a similar question about whether public officials should be allowed to block their critics on social media.

Lindke involves a case in which a city manager blocked critical comments on his Facebook page after switching his personal account to a public page, while O'Connor-Ratcliff involves two school board members who blocked users on their personal social media accounts for spamming them. The plaintiffs in both cases allege that their First Amendment rights were violated because the defendants' decision to block them on social media would fall under government censorship.

Until now, it has been difficult for free speech cases involving activity on social media to make their way to the courts because there cannot be a First Amendment case without state action.

Drug Offenses: Brown v. United States

This case asks the court to clarify drug offense definitions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which imposes a maximum 10-year sentence for felons who possess a firearm but a 15-year minimum sentence on felons who have a firearm violation and three "serious drug offense" convictions.

Arguing that because the state list of controlled substances is different from the federal list, prior drug convictions should not put Justin Rashaad Brown in the latter category and that his conviction under the ACCA would fall only into the first category.

Observers can expect to see concurring opinions that highlight the discrepancy between state and federal marijuana laws.

Another Possible Case: Abortion Pill

While the court has not yet taken up the case involving access to mifepristone, the abortion pill, the justices could add it to the docket.

In August, a federal appeals court ruled that mifepristone could not be prescribed after seven weeks of pregnancy nor via telemedicine, siding with plaintiffs who argued that the Food and Drug Administration did not follow the appropriate procedures when making those changes. It marks an unprecedented challenge to the FDA's authority to approve medications.

"This case could give the first hint of how far the court is willing to go to limit abortion access after overturning Roe v. Wade," Badas said. "Research has shown in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Court has lost a lot of public support and the public view the court as less legitimate.

"This case could show if the court is willing to back down and protect its legitimacy or if the court is willing to spend some of its legitimacy to further restrict access to abortion. The case has issues related to standing. So, if the court wants to avoid making a substantive decision, they could make a decision on the basis of standing and send the case back down to the lower court."