The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its new term on Monday, Oct. 7, with Texas playing a central role in several high-profile cases.
One such case, Garland v. VanDerStok, centers on a Fort Worth judge’s ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority by requiring background checks for “ghost gun kits” — firearms without serial numbers that consumers can assemble from purchased parts.
During Tuesday’s arguments, the court questioned U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on whether the term “weapon,” which appears in various federal, state and campus regulations, should extend to items easily converted into firearms. Prelogar said the term covers more than just fully
assembled firearms.
“Nothing in Congress’ use of the term ‘weapon’ suggests that it has to presently be functional as an instrument of combat in order to qualify,” Prelogar said in response to a question from Justice Samuel Alito, who sought clarification on the definition.
In addition to the VanDerStok case, the court will hear a challenge from the Biden administration against Tennessee for its law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The administration is suing based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment later
this term.
While the case originates in Tennessee, the petitioners are seeking a broader ruling that could impact similar laws across the country, including a Texas statute that currently imposes similar restrictions to gender-affirming care. A ruling in favor of the petitioners could open the door to challenges against Texas’ Senate Bill 14.
“The Sixth Circuit’s decision implicates multiple circuit conflicts about the application of the Equal Protection Clause to laws that target transgender individuals,” the federal government said in its appeal. “And this Court’s intervention is urgently needed because Tennessee’s law is part of a wave of similar bans preventing transgender adolescents from obtaining medical care that they, their parents and their doctors have all concluded is necessary.”
The court is also set to hear cases about the extent of administrative agencies’ right to sue on behalf of its citizens. One such case is Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, a case from Andrews County regarding the Commission’s placement of nuclear storage sites in the state.
David Spence, a professor of energy law and regulation, said the central issue is whether Texas can legally challenge the NRC’s decision in court.
“There’s a question of whether or not the NRC’s decision is reviewable in court at all, at least with these parties involved,” Spence said.
These cases are part of a broader trend of Texas cases reaching the Supreme Court. Out of the 50 states, nearly one-fifth of the cases originated in Texas. Lucas A. Powe Jr., the Anne Green Regents Chair at the School of Law, said since Texas has mostly Republican-appointed judges it sees more challenges from conservative organizations.
“A second (reason) is that Texas does a lot of crazy things, and that produces cases,” Powe said. “The third is Texas is the second most populous state in the United States, so naturally we’d expect more cases to come out.”
