Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate specializing in courts and the law, dives into the impact of the Supreme Court's new term. He discusses pivotal cases that could reshape American life, from voting rights to environmental advocacy. The conversation highlights the tension between judicial independence and media influence, explores legal battles over capital punishment, and examines the implications of bans on gender-affirming care for minors. Stern also raises alarms on how upcoming Court decisions may affect the electoral landscape and public opinion.
The contrasting media strategies of Justices Gorsuch and Jackson exemplify the troubling disconnect between the Supreme Court and public perception amidst rising political biases.
The Supreme Court's upcoming decision on gender-affirming care for minors may redefine constitutional protections and impact transgender rights in the U.S.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Media Dynamics
The current dynamics surrounding the Supreme Court reveal a disconnect between justices and public perception, particularly through their summer media engagements. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson adopted contrasting media strategies, with Gorsuch seeking interviews aligned with his views while Jackson engaged with more diverse platforms. This segregation highlights a broader trend where judicial figures inhabit media bubbles similar to the public, suggesting that they may also be affected by political biases despite claims of judicial impartiality. As they approach a new term amidst public discontent, this divergence raises concerns about how their personal philosophies might inform judicial decision-making.
Implications of Ghost Gun Regulations
The podcast delves into the contentious case of Garland v. Vanderstock, which addresses the regulation of 'ghost guns'—firearms that can be easily assembled from online kits without undergoing standard background checks. The rule introduced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives aims to subject these firearms to existing gun regulations, a measure that has reportedly led to a decrease in their use in criminal activities. As the Supreme Court evaluates whether to uphold the ATF's rule, the decision has significant implications for gun safety and regulation, particularly as the justices have recently expressed more skepticism towards federal agencies. The outcome of this case could either reinforce or dismantle the rules designed to mitigate the risks associated with these untraceable firearms.
Challenges of Gender-Affirming Care Legislation
The impending Supreme Court case concerning bans on gender-affirming care for minors raises critical questions about medical autonomy and anti-discrimination principles. Legislative measures imposed by various states have recently prohibited transgender youths from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy, contrasting with treatment options available to their cisgender counterparts. This legal battle will likely test constitutional protections under the Equal Protection Clause, challenging the normative landscape of health care in the U.S. The outcome could establish a precedent for how gender-affirming medical practice is regulated, reflecting broader societal attitudes toward transgender rights.
The Supreme Court term’s kicked off this week, and the cases in front of the nine justices could reshape American life in public, at home, and in the doctor’s office, for wide swaths of the country. The election, too, could be at the hands of the Court.
Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.
Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.