Five U.S. Supreme Court cases to watch

A new nine-month term begins for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday with major cases that will shape many aspects of American life.

The court’s nine justices returned after last year’s blockbuster tenure, which saw rulings upholding a widely used abortion drug or granting former President Donald Trump immunity from one part from prosecution.

The coming months could fuel legal disputes over the upcoming presidential election, potentially resulting in a tight contest.

With a six-thirds conservative majority still intact, its rulings could add to skepticism among the American public, whose job approval rating currently stands at 43%. according to Gallupnear record low.

With a new year around the corner, here are some key cases on its schedule.

Perhaps the most prominent case this term will be US v Skrmetti, where the justices will hear the Biden administration’s challenge to the Republican-backed ban on sex care for minors. conflict.

Tennessee’s ban, effective July 2023, prohibits certain treatments for minors with gender dysphoria, including the prescription of any age-blocking medication puberty or any hormones, if the treatment is intended to “enable the minor to identify or live as a purported person”. identity inconsistent with the minor’s gender” or dealing with “intentional discomfort or distress caused by discrepancies between the minor’s gender and the asserted identity”.

A group of transgender youth, their families and medical providers, joined the Biden administration in opposing the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding Tennessee’s ban.

Nine Supreme Court justices will be asked to consider whether the ban violates the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, which grants equal protection under the law.

The decision could have consequences nationwide. More than 20 states have enacted laws in recent years that limit access to care specifically for transgender youth.

These restrictions have been opposed by major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

On the second day of its term, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s new regulation of so-called “ghost guns.” most are untraceable made from- home kits.

The case, Garland v VanDerStok, focuses on whether the ATF can regulate these weapons the same way it regulates commercial gun sales, including serial numbers and federal background checks.

The Biden administration first imposed the restrictions in 2022, but were quickly blocked by a lower court, siding with a group of gun owners, gun rights groups and gun manufacturers , who argued that the ATF had exceeded its authority.

The Justice Department then appealed, taking the case to the country’s highest court.

The case could have major implications for US gun control. The White House says unregistered firearms pose a growing threat, with 20,000 suspected ghost guns found in criminal investigations in 2021 – a 10-fold increase from 5 the year before that.

The High Court will also hear a case to clarify how the court can determine whether a police officer acted with reasonable force.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled this year that a Texas police officer reasonably feared for his life when he shot and killed a driver during a traffic stop. pine in Houston in 2016.

Ashtian Barnes was driving a car rented by his girlfriend, having not paid the toll when police officer Roberto Felix Jr. stopped him. Mr. Barnes initially stopped and opened the trunk, but then began to drive away. Officer Felix jumped into the car and fired two shots into the car, according to dashcam footage. A bullet struck Mr. Barnes in the head and he died.

Mr. Barnes’ mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, sued on her son’s behalf, claiming that the use of deadly force against her son was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect protect the public from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The justices found that Officer Felix behaved reasonably under the Fourth Amendment’s “moment of threat” doctrine, which asks whether the officer was in danger at the time he used force or not. Under this standard, the officer’s actions up to that point are disregarded.

One of the judges on the panel, Justice Patrick Higginbotham, wrote a concurring opinion expressing disappointment with the audit and asking the Supreme Court to intervene.

Judge Higginbotham said, if allowed to consider the “totality of the circumstances,” he would find that the officer violated Mr. Barnes’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Although a date for this case has not yet been set, at some point this term the Supreme Court justices will consider a challenge from the adult entertainment industry to a Texas law requiring Porn sites must verify the age of users.

The law requires pornographic websites with one-third content harmful to minors to use age verification measures to ensure all visitors are 18 years of age or older.

It also requires websites to post health warnings, saying pornography is addictive, undermines development and increases demand for child exploitation – claims the industry disputes.

Several other US states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana and North Carolina, require certain websites to verify the age of visitors.

The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the porn industry, has challenged the law, saying it violates First Amendment protections of free speech.

The challenge was successful before the federal district court, but that ruling was overturned on appeal by a Fifth Circuit panel.

The ruling could have broad implications for First Amendment protections, possibly reversing a previous ruling that held that adults’ free speech rights outweigh potential harms out to minors.