The bureau issued a rule in 2022 that the definition of “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1986 includes weapon parts kits that can be “readily” assembled into a firearm. The rule also states that the term “frame or receiver,” as referenced in the act’s “firearm” definition, includes “a partially complete … frame or receiver.” A lower court found that the bureau had exceeded its authority in issuing the rule. The Biden administration
appealed to the Supreme Court (Garland v. Van der Stok.)
The
second gun-related case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, came to the court from Mexico. That country charged Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms with aiding the illegal trafficking of firearms to drug cartels in Mexico. A lower court refused to dismiss Mexico’s suit under a 2005 federal law that shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their guns.
A transgender health care ban and reverse discrimination
Tennessee, like 25 other Republican-controlled states, passed legislation
banning medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” at birth or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” In taking on United States v. Skrmetti, the justices
agreed to decide whether the law discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the equal protection clause.
The justices will also
decide a woman’s claim (Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services) that she was denied a promotion because she is heterosexual and her former boss, a gay woman, instead advanced two LGBTQ+ people. Marlean Ames, an Ohio government employee, challenges a court-imposed requirement that “majority” Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate “background circumstances,” such as statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against a majority group, before their suits can proceed.
Free speech and online porn
In 2023, Texas joined a growing number of states that have passed laws requiring websites that publish sexual material deemed “harmful to minors” to verify their users’ age before they can access anything on the site. The Texas law also requires covered sites to prominently publish “sexual materials health warnings” written by the government.
In
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the justices will decide what type of scrutiny — rational basis or strict scrutiny — to apply to the law, which the challengers contend unconstitutionally burdens users and compels speech.
A fight over vapes
Wages and White Lion Investments makes flavored e-liquids containing nicotine for use in e-cigarettes, such as vapes. The company sought marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration to continue making and selling its products. But the FDA denied premarketing approval after finding that the products did not show strong, reliable evidence to overcome the risks of youth addiction and benefits to adult smokers.
The company has challenged the FDA’s denials, claiming it lacked authority to impose those requirements and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. A lower appellate court agreed with the company, and the
FDA turned to the Supreme Court (FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments).
Not in my backyard!
The justices will return to an old and thorny issue: where to store nuclear waste. Texas challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s plan to store 40,000 metric tons of waste in Texas’ Permian Basin. A lower federal appellate court ruled that the federal agency did not have the authority to issue licenses to store the waste away from reactors.
The case,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, could become another chapter in the conservative majority’s recent efforts to rein in the power of federal regulatory agencies.
AN OKLAHOMA DEATH PENALTY CASE REFLECTS DIVIDES OVER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
