Article by: Law Clerk Jose De Luna
The 2023 October Term of the United States Supreme Court term featured some of the most consequential decisions in recent years. The Court ruled that the United States President’s official acts are entitled to immunity, rolled back federal agencies’ authority, held that bump stocks could not be banned under existing gun law, and made it easier for employees to establish harm in Title VII discrimination suits. The Court’s 2024 October docket looks to follow in kind and feature high-stakes decisions on some of our nations most polarizing topics such as transgender rights, gun rights, and free speech and privacy.
Gender Affirming Care (United States v. Skrmetti)
The Court will weigh in for the first time on whether state laws may ban gender-affirming care for minors, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Tennessee’s law banned providing such care to minors, required current care to end within a specified period, and also established a private right of action against practitioners who provide gender-affirming care. Texas has enacted similar laws and the case’s outcome will likely determine their constitutionality as well.
Ghost Gun Regulations (Garland v. Vanderstok)
“Ghost Guns” are firearms that are put together by components either through a kit or individual pieces. They have posed a problem for law enforcement and regulation as they do not have traceable serial numbers and do not generally require background checks. A federal rule required these serial numbers and background checks which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down. The Court will consider whether the guns can be counted as firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and accordingly regulated.
Free Speech and Online Pornography (Coalition v. Paxton)
Texas and other states have recently enacted laws restricting access to pornography websites. These laws may require age verification and/or other measures to prevent minors from accessing the websites. Subject matter aside, the case will have major 1st Amendment and right of privacy implications. In the balance of individual rights and harm to minors, past Court decisions have sided with individual rights.
Flavored Vapes (FDA v. Waged and White Lion Investments DBA Triton Distribution)
The Court will consider the legality of the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) refusal to approve flavored e-cigarettes. Flavored e-cigarettes gained popularity as an alternative for traditional smokers, but the last decade has seen an explosion in use among teens and minor children who had never smoked before. This has become a global issue with the United Kingdom recently banning disposable vapes altogether. The FDA has expressed concern over the use among children while e-cigarette companies are troubled about limiting avenues to those seeking to quit traditional smoking.
ADA Rights of Retirees (Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla.)
Can retirees sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for discrimination in the distribution of fringe benefits? This is the question the Court will have to answer. Firefighter Karyn D. Stanley was forced to take a disability retirement. She did not know, however, that the city had changed its disability retirement policy to one less generous years before her retirement. She brought suit claiming that the new policy violated the ADA, and the Court will decide whether retired or former employees can bring such a case.
While the docket has plenty of newsworthy cases, even more are expected to be taken in the coming months. Our firm is committed to remaining informed in this dynamic legal landscape. If you require legal advice on a particular issue, please contact our law offices.
