The Supreme Court cases to watch over the next 2 months
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
At the halfway point of its current term, the Supreme Court has several blockbuster argument sessions in its rearview mirror, including a battle over former President Donald Trump’s right to appear on 2024 ballots.
But some of the biggest debates are yet to come as the justices barrel toward their traditional June 30 deadline for releasing opinions.
In the weeks ahead, the court will consider censorship on sites like Facebook, FDA guidelines for an abortion-inducing pill and a number of other thorny issues.
Here’s what you need to know about the most notable cases on the Supreme Court’s schedule for February and March:
Ohio v. EPA
Consolidated with: Kinder Morgan v. EPA; American Forest & Paper v. EPA; U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA.
Oral arguments: Wednesday, Feb. 21.
Key question: Can the Environmental Protection Agency implement its plan to reduce ozone pollution while lawsuits challenging it play out?
Lower court rulings: Lower courts have not yet ruled on whether the EPA’s plan can take effect permanently. In these four cases, state officials and companies affected by the proposed air quality rules are challenging a D.C. Circuit ruling saying the plan can take effect at least temporarily.
Why it matters: The Supreme Court’s ruling will likely hint at how the justices feel about the EPA’s actions, giving court watchers a sense of whether the plan will survive the legal challenges and how much authority the EPA will have in the future to combat air pollution.
Related
Moody v. Netchoice
Consolidated with: Netchoice v. Paxton.
Oral arguments: Monday, Feb. 26.
Key question: Can states — specifically Texas and Florida — regulate social media sites’ content moderation policies?
Lower court rulings: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas’ law, which aims to prevent social media sites like Facebook and X from basing content moderation decisions on the views a user is promoting. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked most of Florida’s similar policy from taking effect.
Why it matters: The Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify the scope of social media sites’ free speech rights and move conservative politicians’ long-term battle against these sites into a new phase. Former President Donald Trump, the American Jewish Committee and a faith-related satirical news site, the Babylon Bee, are among the individuals and groups who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs and tried to influence how the justices approach the issue.
Garland v. Cargill
Oral arguments: Wednesday, Feb. 28.
Key question: Does a 1986 law prohibiting the purchase or sale of machine guns justify a modern ban on bump stocks?
Lower court ruling: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that bump stocks, which can be used to transform semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic ones, do not fit the legal definition of machine guns and, therefore, can’t be regulated using that 1986 law.
Why it matters: In the absence of congressional action on gun control, presidential administrations have relied on the federal rule-making process to limit access to the kinds of guns typically used in mass shootings. The Supreme Court would disrupt this strategy if it rules that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives erred by applying a decades-old ban on machine guns to the modern gun market.
Murthy v. Missouri
Oral arguments: Monday, March 18.
Key question: Can the Biden administration work with social media companies to set content moderation policies for posts on COVID-19 vaccines and other sensitive topics?
Lower court ruling: A district court judge ruled against the Biden administration, issuing an order that prevents administration officials, including leaders from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FBI, from communicating with social media sites about content. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld that order.
Why it matters: The case was brought by a group of state leaders and medical professionals who claim they were unlawfully prevented from posting about their frustrations with vaccine mandates, masking rules and other topics. Like the Netchoice cases, this battle could change how social media sites like Facebook do business. It could also limit the federal government’s ability to control how public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic are talked about online.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Consolidated with: Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
Oral arguments: Tuesday, March 26.
Key question: Should the FDA’s efforts to broaden access to an abortion-inducing pill be overturned?
Lower court rulings: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the FDA and Danco Laboratories, which manufactures the pill, determining that the FDA acted improperly when it allowed the pill to be provided by mail and extended how long into a pregnancy the pill can be used.
Why it matters: These are the first abortion-related cases the Supreme Court will hear since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, and the justices’ eventual ruling could further limit abortion access nationwide. Mifepristone, the pill at the center of this battle, is used in more than half of abortions in the U.S. each year, according to The Associated Press.
