Supreme Court Preview 2024-2025 Term

November 14, 2024

Authors: Chenelle Hammonds, Senior Policy Associate (chenelle@progressivecaucuscenter.org)

For the term that began in October, the Supreme Court is considering several cases that have the potential to shape our society and legal landscape. From LGBTQ+ discrimination to ghost guns and police use of force, the Court's decisions have the power to impact individuals and communities across the nation. Below we take a closer look at some of the key cases the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will examine this year.

U.S. v. Skrmetti – Transgender Rights

This case involves a challenge by the Biden Administration to determine whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Under the law, health providers are prohibited from administering a medical procedure or prescribing or dispensing hormones to minors when provided in a way the state considers “inconsistent” with a person’s sex designated at birth. Health providers who violate the law could face $25,000 fines, civil penalties, and professional discipline. The plaintiffs—three transgender individuals and their parents—are calling on the Supreme Court to block the law’s restrictions on hormone therapy on the grounds of sex-based discrimination. The court’s ruling could serve as a bellwether of how far the Court is willing to go in allowing states to override individuals’ personal medical decisions—in this case, parents’ ability to make medical decisions for their children—with implications for trans individuals’ access to life-saving care at any age. Currently, 26 states have passed laws that ban all forms of gender-affirming care for trans youth. 

Garland v. VanDerStok – Ghost Guns

In 2022, the Biden Administration imposed restrictions on “ghost guns,” which allow individuals to build untraceable firearms at home. Ghost guns are put together by assembling pieces that may be purchased individually or as a kit. Although ghost guns are as lethal as any other firearm, they are unregulated, and thus do not require a background check and are not assigned serial numbers. Under the Biden Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a directive requiring these weapons to be regulated in the same way the department regulates commercial gun sales. This requires ghost gun distributors to obtain licenses, perform background checks, mark their products with serial numbers, maintain transaction records, and ensure buyers are at least 21. Plaintiffs in the case, which include parts manufacturers, gun owners, and gun rights groups, sued the Biden Administration to block the rule, asserting that ATF overstepped its authority. In 2023, U.S District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas ruled against the regulation, and the conservative U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals upheld this decision. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if federal law allows the regulation of weapons parts that "may readily be converted" into guns that impose increasing threats to public safety. 

Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos – Gun Manufacturer Liability 

The Supreme Court will also hear a case that will decide whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held liable for gun violence in Mexico as a result of illegal gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels. Notably, this case involves the application of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In a reversal from a previous district court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that while PLCAA does apply to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit is valid because gun manufacturers knowingly aided and abetted illegal gun trafficking in violation of U.S. law. Now that the case rests within the hands of the highest U.S. court, it signifies a significant test to the gun industry’s immunity from liability claims. 

Barnes v. Felix – Police Use of Force
In 2016, Texas Constable Roberto Felix Jr. was charged with unreasonable use of deadly force in the shooting of an unarmed black man, 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes. The officer stopped Barnes over a $6.45 unpaid toll ticket from his girlfriend’s rental car, which was later linked to a previous driver. As Barnes began to drive away during the traffic stop, Officer Felix jumped onto the car’s door sill with his gun drawn and fatally shot Barnes. The Supreme Court will now review a Fifth Circuit decision that dismissed the officer of all charges under the presumption that he feared for his life. Justices will decide whether courts should apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive use of force claim under the Fourth Amendment—that is, to evaluate if an officer’s actions are reasonable only within the narrow window when the officer’s safety was threatened—or whether courts must evaluate the reasonableness of an officer’s actions using a “totality of the circumstances” approach. The latter evaluates the officer's actions leading up to the use of force.

Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services – Reverse Discrimination

The Court could lower the bar for white employees to bring employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justices will consider whether workers from “majority backgrounds” (e.g., white, heterosexual, male) should be held to a heightened standard of proof in demonstrating workplace discrimination. The case involves a straight, white Ohio woman who was demoted and replaced by a gay man, and passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman. Title VII protections apply equally to white workers, but given the historical context underlying the federal law, some courts require plaintiffs of majority groups to show more proof to support claims of employer discrimination, in the absence of direct evidence. If the Supreme Court strikes down this requirement, known as the “background circumstances” test, it could make it easier for plaintiffs from majority groups to raise “reverse discrimination” claims in court. This comes against the backdrop of the high Court’s ruling in June 2023 on affirmative action, which has given way to many organizations and institutions abandoning DEI initiatives and the proliferation of “reverse discrimination” lawsuits that undermine efforts to promote equal opportunity.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton – Protected Speech

In 2023, Texas joined a number of states in passing an age verification law for accessing websites deemed harmful for minors. The Texas law requires websites to verify the age of all users if “one-third or more the content is harmful to minors.” It also requires sites to “publish sexual materials health warnings” written by the state. Impacted plaintiffs are challenging the Texas law on First Amendment grounds, alleging that the age-verification requirement “impermissibly burdens users and that the health warnings impermissibly compel speech.” Additionally, the plaintiffs claim the verification requirements unlawfully restrict adults’ freedom to access websites that may include pornographic material and rob people of anonymity. After a Fifth Circuit ruling allowed the age-restriction requirements to go into effect, the Supreme Court will decide what legal scrutiny should be applied when courts examine the constitutionality of age verification laws that burden adults’ access to protected speech. 

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency – Clean Water

The City and County of San Francisco are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s clean water standards under the Clean Water Act after San Francisco dumped sewage into its waterways. San Francisco argues that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act when it required the City and County to reduce sewage overflows during storms. The EPA argues that this regulation is critical to protecting the public, citing examples of sewage overflowing into the bay and even into people’s homes. Several states, including California itself, filed amicus briefs in support of the EPA. 

This case follows the Supreme Court’s decimation of “Chevron Deference” in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo last term. Chevron Deference is the principle that courts should defer to independent agencies’ subject-matter authority and expertise when interpreting statutes. If the Court rules against the EPA, it risks seriously undermining the EPA’s ability to protect clean water. It will also constitute another example of the Court eroding agencies’ ability to execute the laws Congress empowered them to implement.

Seven Court Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO – Environmental Impacts

Justices will review a lower court decision that halted construction of the Uinta Basin Railway, a project that would carry waxy crude oil through Utah and Colorado to Gulf Coast refineries. If completed, this railway could facilitate the release of 58.5 million tons of carbon pollution yearly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the railway’s approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—a federal law requiring agencies to assess environmental effects before approving construction—by failing to account for the railway’s potential long-term harm to the climate, wildlife, and communities. 

SCOTUS will determine whether NEPA requires federal agencies to consider “proximate” impacts to the environment when making permitting decisions. In this case, those proximate impacts include the environmental and public health harm the railway will enable long after it is built—not just the harm its construction causes. Ultimately, the case will determine the extent to which the federal government may use its discretion to assess the full range of effects environmentally harmful infrastructure may cause. This, in turn, will have long-term implications for environmental justice communities and the fight against climate change.

Shadow Docket

The Supreme Court’s use of the so-called shadow docket has radically expanded in recent years. The shadow docket is supposed to be used for emergency motions and cases of little importance, like deciding briefs’ due dates. In these instances, the Court rules without full briefings on the cases, and justices are not required to explain their reasoning or sign their names to their rulings.  The current conservative supermajority Supreme Court has dramatically expanded both the number of cases in the shadow docket and their importance. 

In 2024, the Court has already used the shadow docket to block debt relief for student loan borrowers, stop the Biden Administration from protecting trans students, and enforce voter suppression laws in Arizona. The continued use of the shadow docket for substantive cases that restrict our rights and freedom is underhanded, unaccountable, and dangerous.