The Supreme Court has teed up a series of disputes addressing health and safety issues for minors for its upcoming term, which kicks off Monday.
The justices might not have a particular theme in mind while opening the 2024-2025 term, but their agreement to consider at least three key cases dealing with the protection of children is remarkable.
They’ll hear cases dealing with transgender minor surgeries, age verification to access porn online and federal requirements against marketing flavored vapes to prevent young people from smoking.
“It shows you some of the issues society as a whole are trying to deal with right now, which is why we are getting a lot of laws and regulations that are touching on those issues,” said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. “How can we best protect our children?”
“It is certainly true that a lot of regulations whether it is stuff that is directed at transgender issues or whether it is health and safety material is directed at minors and it is often an important justification that is used for that kind of regulation or legislation,” said Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow at People For the American Way. “So, it is not a surprise that a number of the cases taken by the court relate to that.”
The justices are set to rule in the coming months on whether a state ban on puberty blockers and transgender surgeries for minors is lawful.
The issue is what court watchers say is currently the top case of the term so far. A date for oral arguments on the dispute, U.S. v. Skrmetti, has not been set, but it already has become a major battleground.
The Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union oppose Tennessee’s ban on the treatments for minors over concerns about safety and health.
The ACLU said courts have rejected those types of prohibitions on medical treatment for transgender youths in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Kentucky.
But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Tennessee’s ban to take effect.
The Tennessee case was brought by three transgender minors, their parents and a doctor who had 16 transgender youths as patients who are challenging the ban.
In addition, the justices will weigh in on whether certain states’ efforts to ensure that minors can’t access pornography on the internet are constitutional.
The high court will decide in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton whether Texas can bar minors from pornography on the internet by requiring users to enter personal identification information to prove their age. A lower court sided with the state, prompting the free speech group to appeal.
The lawsuit, which has not had an oral argument date set, centers on Texas H.B. 1181, which requires pornography companies to have age verification measures for users to access their sites. Users have to prove they are adults by showing identification or other methods.
The state’s goal was to deter the flow of adult images and materials to children. A company that violates the state’s requirement could face civil fines of more than $10,000.
The Free Speech Coalition challenged the law, saying the age verification process infringes on adult use of pornographic sites by requiring too much personal information and runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Additionally, the justices will address federal restrictions on advertising flavored vapes to avoid marketing to youth.
In Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments LLC, dba Triton Distribution, et al., the FDA has denied marketing authorization for flavored e-cigarettes or vapes by Triton Distribution.
The company said the flavors would help adults switch to its products and away from traditional cigarettes, but the FDA said the flavors would attract minors and pose risks to public health.
A lower court sided against the FDA’s denial of the company’s marketing authorization, prompting the government to appeal to the high court.
The first arguments of the term on Monday involve a group of Alabama residents attempting to sue the state over delaying their application for unemployment benefits, and another case over moving a state court case to federal court.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear one of the court’s most tracked disputes this term. It relates to the regulation of ghost guns.
In Merrick Garland v. Jennifer VanDerStok, the justices will consider the government’s regulations on ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled at home and lack serial numbers.
The Biden administration asked the justices to review the case after a federal appellate court struck down a regulation on the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The administration in 2022 announced a regulation that reinterpreted the 1968 law to cover the kits. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has long considered frames or receivers that could be made operable with a few quick alterations to be firearms. The government argued that the kits fall under that category.
The ATF’s rule was challenged by gun rights groups and companies that sell the kits. The groups won an injunction at the lower court level, but the Supreme Court put it on hold while the litigation is pending, allowing the rule to take effect.
Legal battles awaiting justices
The justices could decide during this term to take up two major disputes dealing with laws out of Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education and Hecox v. Little.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against West Virginia’s law that would require transgender girls to compete on boys or co-ed teams. A transgender student challenged the law, and the 4th Circuit sided with her.
Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted Idaho from enforcing its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bases sports participation on biological sex.
Similar to the West Virginia law, a transgender student wishing to run track at Boise State University challenged the law as running afoul of the 14th Amendment.
The justices could also agree to hear Hile v. Michigan, which deals with state funding going to parochial schools.
Challenges expected to arise this term
The issue of President Biden’s administration moving to eliminate student debt and protect transgender students in schools are percolating in lower courts and could make it to the justices during this 2024-2025 term, which runs from October through June.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also is readying to rule on a law passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Biden that bans TikTok from operating in the U.S. after January. It’s likely that case could come before the justices, too.
Court watchers also predict the high court could face election-related legal battles as Election Day approaches with a tight race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
“I think we are going to end up getting a lot of the runoff from the election,” said Adam Feldman, Supreme Court scholar and creator of the Empirical SCOTUS blog.
“Every election year there is always one type of big question, especially if it is close — and it looks close,” Ms. Severino said. “It is very likely the court is going to have to answer something.”
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.