“The biggest theme appears to be the court’s role itself in American democracy,” says Dan Urman, a professor who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.
The 2024-2025 Supreme Court term kicked off this week, setting the stage for yet another potential blockbuster year that could see big decisions on the Second Amendment and equal protection — all while awaiting what experts say could be significant legal fallout from the 2024 presidential election.
As the Supreme Court begins filling in its docket, several cases have already come to the fore, such as the Biden administration’s restrictions on “ghost guns” and a challenge to a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care, says Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern University, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.
And in terms of the number of cases on the docket, this term is starting off with fewer than in recent memory.
“The court seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to granting cases and has only granted about half the cases they usually hear during a term,” Urman says. “Some of the big issues involve guns assembled at home — ghost guns, state bans on gender-affirming care and a question of prosecutorial misconduct and the death penalty.”
The court reconvened this week just months after it issued one of its most consequential and controversial rulings to date on presidential immunity (Trump v. U.S.), which found that presidents are entitled to “presumptive” immunity from prosecution for core “official acts.”
The court has also been asked to weigh in on several disputes relating to voting and the election, including an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, as well as bids by third-party and independent candidates Jill Stein and Robert Kennedy Jr., respectively, to have their names restored on the ballots of several states.
Sign up for NGN’s daily newsletter for news, discovery and analysis from around the world.
And as the 2024 election winds down, Northeastern court watchers anticipate a slew of election-related claims that could make it before the high court.
“I think it’s inevitable that we’ll see election cases,” says Jeremy R. Paul, a professor of law and former dean of the Northeastern University School of Law. “Now, whether they ultimately reach the point of full briefing and argument — that’s a separate question.”
“The biggest theme appears to be the court’s role itself in American democracy,” Urman says. “Does the court want to be at the center of electoral and political disputes or does the court want to remain above the fray and outside of the political arena? Does the court want to be part of any election litigation and play a role in prolonging a resolution to a dispute over who wins in November?”
Concerns about the ideological composition of the court are certain to persist throughout the current term, Paul says. Public favorability toward the court is at historic lows, according to Pew Research, following a string of decisions in recent years that break with precedent (notably, the overturning of Roe v. Wade) or otherwise diminish the ability of the federal government to enact meaningful regulations (notably, the overturning of the “Chevron” doctrine), he says.
Hearings in some of the cases are already underway. The Supreme Court this week seemed sympathetic to the federal government’s plan to rein in ghost guns, which are unserialized firearms made from component parts purchased as kits or as separate, assemblable pieces.
The Biden administration’s rule, enacted in 2022 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, requires that gun makers and sellers be licensed to sell the kits; the products be marked with serial numbers so they can be traced; and prospective buyers pass a background check.
Urman says this term may also be touched by court reform efforts and court ethics. Last year, in the wake of several scandals involving members of the court and undisclosed gifts, the Supreme Court issued a set of ethical codes of conduct to govern the behavior of its members.
Over the summer, Biden proposed a series of changes to the court that included term limits, a constitutional amendment addressing the decision on presidential immunity and an enforceable ethics code — all of which legal experts describe as non-starters given the congressional divide.
Ethical changes with any real teeth — initiated and approved by Congress, as opposed to the justices themselves — remain a long shot in the current political climate, Urman says.
“That would only happen if Democrats control the White House and both branches of Congress,” he says. “Republicans are not interested in real court reform because the court is delivering for them.”