The Supreme Court will be back in session on Monday to hear dozens important cases, including gun rights, social networking, and administrative law issues that could change federal bureaucracy forever.

The Supreme Court’s term traditionally begins the first Monday of October. The Supreme Court will start its nine-month term this week with Pulsifer V. United States. This case involves the interpretation a federal statute that allows defendants the option of not receiving mandatory minimum sentences in certain nonviolent drug offenses.

The first week of the year is a time when many people are preparing for their weddings.

The issue at the heart of Pulsifer is that lower courts are divided over the meaning of “and”, as used in the bipartisan criminal reform of 2018.

Biblical values or DEI values? Make no mistake. This election is a choice on what values America will embrace. Do we continue to embrace the Biblical values that were enshrined in the Constitution by America’s Founding Fathers, or will America embrace the Woke values of the Left? Support the Coalition for Jewish Values to restore our country back to its Biblical roots. 1776 Coalition Sponsored

Com. v. CFPB will be heard by the Supreme Court on Oct. 3. Fin. Services Assn. will examine the authority and power of U.S. agencies. This includes an attempt to demolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The case focuses on the constitutionality the Federal Reserve funding mechanism for CFPB while most federal agencies are funded by Congress.

Acheson Hotel, LLC v. Laufer is the case that will end the first week of October 4. It involves a Maine hotel owner who tried to stop disability lawsuits by attempting to hide accessibility information on the company’s web site after being notified about a complaint.

Deborah Laufer is the main claimant in the case. She has caused a circuit split in many appeals courts throughout the country by filing complaints against hotels and lodges where she later admitted that she did not intend to make a reservation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups claim that so-called Americans with Disabilities Act testers have led to a rise in lawsuits filed against small businesses for discrimination against disabled people. They have asked the justices not to allow such lawsuits.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court, in addition to hearing the CFPB, has also decided to hear other cases involving the authority of agencies. One of these is a request by a conservative radio host from Texas to limit the internal enforcement procedures of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the financial markets regulator). Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled in the case SEC v. Jarkesy.

The CFPB and SEC case are closely related, but the question is much more complex. In the case Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo, the question is whether federal courts are to defer to the reasonable interpretations of federal laws by Congress and Presidents even though some are written in ambiguity. Legal experts claim that the case could potentially overturn a precedent established in 1984’s Chevron v. NRDC. However, it is yet to be seen just how far the justices go. The Biden Administration has asked the justices not to change the precedent set in 1984’s Chevron v. NRDC. A date for oral arguments has yet to be announced.

The justices are also going to take on another gun issue, in this case it involves a criminal defendant that has been charged numerous times for gun violence. In a 6-3 decision last summer, the court found that “history” and “tradition” determine whether or not a gun regulation falls under the Second Amendment. On Nov. 7, the high court will consider whether the government has the right to ban guns for people who are subject to domestic violence restraining order.

MORE CASES TO COME

The justices convened in Washington, D.C., for their annual “long conferences” last week. They usually reject thousands cases, selecting only a few disputes for oral arguments later in the term.

They granted 12 new cases on Friday, including two involving technology industry groups who were challenging Republican-written state laws restricting social media moderation. NetChoice, v. Paxton is a case involving a Texas law that restricts what content platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can ban. Moody v. NetChoice is a second case that’s closely related. It concerns a similar law passed by the Texas Governor. Ron DeSantis, (R-FL), in Florida.

The Supreme Court may be forced to revisit the issue, and this time it will be over the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for a common abortion drug. Danco Laboratories has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that would restrict the use and distribution of this drug.

There could be more legal action in the pipeline. A conservative group is challenging Washington State’s ban on homosexual conversion therapy. New York landlords are fighting the city’s rent stabilization laws. And an Oklahoma death-row prisoner wants to overturn his sentence. The state’s Republican Attorney General supports this request.

The Supreme Court usually grants new cases through an order list that is released each Monday at 9:30 am. Oral arguments scheduled for this month may result in decisions as soon as December or even January.