Fresh out of Barnard College with a degree in political science, Riley is learning the ropes as a writer and reporter for GZERO. When she isn’t writing about global politics, you can find her making GZERO’s crossword puzzles, conducting research on American politics, or persisting in her lifelong quest to learn French. Riley spends her time outside of work grilling, dancing, and wearing many hats (both literally and figuratively).
On Monday, the US Supreme Court took the bench again for a session where it will hear 40 cases, including some potentially landmark rulings on a Tennessee law outlawing hormone treatments for transgender minors; the Biden administration’s effort to ban “ghost guns,” which are assembled from kits purchased untraceably over the internet; and an Oklahoma capital punishment case where the state attorneys general have concluded the prosecutors hid evidence that could have led to an acquittal. All of these speak to culture war issues over which Americans are deeply divided – and at a time when faith in the Supreme Court is at its lowest.
What’s not on the docket? A case that could provide an answer on whether state abortion bans may conflict with federal law. The court decided not to rule on a case in Texas where the Biden administration invoked the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay. The administration argues this act preempts more restrictive state regulations on providing emergency abortion services.
The decision not to take up the case leaves the Texas court’s decision stopping the federal government from enforcing its mandate on emergency abortions in the state in place. It has been criticized by abortion-rights activists and physicians but also by Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two judges on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
And the election looms. Although the court’s caseload features fewer blockbuster cases than last year, when it ruled on presidential immunity, it does have one potentially huge looming responsibility: to potentially shape the outcome of the US election. Before the vote, SCOTUS could be asked to resolve last-minute disputes over ballot access or vote-counting rules. And after Nov. 5, it could be called upon to decide a winner if there is a serious dispute over the results.
