Prior to the start of their term in October 2022, Supreme Court justices, including recently appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, were photographed with President Joe Biden. IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES COLLECTION THROUGH GETTY IMAGES

On October 3, four months after Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Supreme Court's six-vote conservative supermajority reconvenes to hear a fresh batch of cases that may further overturn established precedent and fundamentally alter the law.

The court overturned a half-worth century's of precedent pertaining to women's rights in its previous term, and this time around, it appears poised to overturn another half-worth century's of racial precedent.

Affirmative action in higher education may be abolished, the Voting Rights Act may be further undermined, state legislatures may be given the authority to enact restrictive voting laws and gerrymandered voting districts without judicial oversight, and prisoners who have been wrongfully convicted and who are disproportionately Black may no longer be able to petition to have their sentences overturned.

The court will hear crucial cases that could severely impede antitrust enforcement efforts, further impede federal regulatory action, and make it simpler for states to deny residents Medicare and Medicaid services in addition to cases that could dramatically undo decades of progress on racial equity.

The court's dramatic rewriting of American law is unlikely to be stopped by its conservative supermajority.

After the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eliminated federal protections for abortion rights, public support for the court plummeted. The justices fought all summer long about the legitimacy of the court, or, in the case of Justice Samuel Alito, about the demise of Roe.

These conservatives spent years building an impenetrable judicial bloc that could destroy the last vestiges of the New Deal administration and reverse the gains made by the civil rights movement, and now they have it.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's first full term begins with the October term. She is disqualified from hearing one of the two affirmative action cases because she previously heard it on appeal while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit due to her prior position on that court. She can take part because those two cases have been separated.

The most crucial cases in the court's October session are those mentioned above.

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. Harvard University, and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina

Arguments scheduled for October 31

There is a good chance that the two cases opposing the affirmative action policies at Harvard University, a private university, and the University of North Carolina System, a public university system, will lead to the overturning of decades-old precedent supporting the taking of race into account when deciding who gets into colleges.

Students for Fair Admissions, an organisation led by Edward Blum, an outspoken opponent of affirmative action, is asking the court to disregard its previous rulings upholding the limited use of race in college admissions decisions in both cases. Affirmative action policies that favour the enrollment of Black, Latino, and Native American applicants, according to Blum, who is opposed to race-conscious policymaking, harm Asian American applicants more than they do white applicants like Abigail Fisher in the Harvard and North Carolina cases.

When Blum presented Fisher v. University of Texas to the court in 2016, it was the last time the court heard an affirmative action case. Following the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court ruled against Fisher 4-3. Since that time, the court's composition has shifted significantly to the right in opposition to racial discrimination in public policy. Blum almost certainly will be successful in ending racial affirmative action policies at higher education institutions this time. Depending on the admissions policies that institutions adopt in response, this will probably lead to a decrease in the number of Black and Latino students enrolling in the most elite American universities, colleges, and graduate programmes.

Merrill v. Milligan

Arguments scheduled for October 4


The court appears prepared to reduce the number of Black and Latino elected representatives in Merrill v. Milligan, just as its affirmative action decision could result in fewer Black and Latino students attending particular schools.



The case began as a lawsuit brought by Black Alabamians who claimed that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required Alabama's new congressional district map to include two Black-majority districts rather than just one. The state was ordered to create a new map by a three-judge lower court panel that included two Trump nominees. However, five conservative justices on the Supreme Court intervened, overturned the lower court decision, and took the case up for argument.

This unusual overturning of a lower court panel's decision in a Section 2 case involving racial vote dilution indicates that the court's conservatives are aiming to rewrite the precedence set by the Voting Rights Act over the previous 40 years. Alabama is introducing a race-blind redistricting test in an effort to undermine the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act would be destroyed by such a test, and some observers worry that it could result in the "biggest decline in Black and Latino representation in generations."

Moore v. Harper

Arguments scheduled for: TBA

Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature are asking the court to accept the previously unpopular theory that state legislatures are not constrained by their state constitutions when enacting election laws or constructing legislative district maps in Moore v. Harper, another redistricting case. If the court adopts this "independent state legislature theory," state legislatures would be free to enact any election law or district map without having to worry about whether they are in violation of the state's constitution.

The case seeks to create brand-new law out of thin air in addition to threatening to overturn centuries of precedent. Even a portion of the North Carolina GOP's argument in court is founded on a forged document.

There would essentially be no avenue for anyone to challenge a partisan gerrymander if state courts refused to hear such challenges, as the Supreme Court has already ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims cannot be brought in federal courts. This would allow the many state legislatures that already have Republican-friendly gerrymanders to maintain and strengthen them indefinitely while passing election laws that are not subject to state court review.There would essentially be no avenue for anyone to challenge a partisan gerrymander if state courts refused to hear such challenges, as the Supreme Court has already ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims cannot be brought in federal courts. This would allow the many state legislatures that already have Republican-friendly gerrymanders to maintain and strengthen them indefinitely while passing election laws that are not subject to state court review.
Participants in the 2022 commemoration of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches, which helped the Voting Rights Act become law. In 2022, Alabama will request that the Supreme Court invalidate the Voting Rights Act. BELTRAN BELL. Image : Getty

Jones v. Hendrix

Scheduled debating: November 1

In Jones v. Hendrix, the plaintiff requests that the high court grant a petitioner's request for a reversal of their conviction based on a later, retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision. This person was found guilty of a crime in district court.

Marcus DeAngelo Jones requests that his conviction for illegal firearm possession while an ex-felon be overturned. After he was found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled in Rehaif v. U.S. that when prosecutors prosecute cases involving the possession of firearms by someone who has been convicted of a felony, they must demonstrate that the defendant knew they were in possession of a gun and that they were not authorised to have one. Prosecutors did not establish that Jones knew he was not allowed to possess the gun in Jones' case.

However, given that a disproportionate number of criminal defendants and prisoners are Black, this court has grown increasingly hostile to their rights. If Jones is found guilty, it may be difficult for those arguing that they were wrongfully imprisoned to pursue their case.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran

Scheduled debating: November 7.

In the Axon Enterprise and Cochran cases, it was questioned whether businesses facing administrative investigations by federal agencies for possible legal violations could sue to stop the investigation. A new tool to help corporations avoid enforcement actions for financial, antitrust, and other violations would be provided by such a change.

Although the structure of the Federal Trade Commission is not being questioned as being unconstitutional in the Axon case, a negative decision against the agency could help in future lawsuits brought by anticompetitive businesses seeking to undermine the top antitrust agency as it adopts a new, more aggressive stance under the Joe Biden administration.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Arguments scheduled for October 3

There seems to be a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency in every court term these days. The Supreme Court continued the efforts of the conservative justices to dismantle the federal administrative state last term by restricting how the EPA could control greenhouse gas emissions at power plants. The Sackett case offers the court another chance to advance its strategy of impeding federal agency regulatory processes. The case involves the waters of the United States, or WOTUS.

Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski

Scheduled debating: November 8

Last but not least, the case of Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski offers the court a chance to destroy Medicaid by prohibiting people from filing lawsuits to question how states run federal programmes.

The Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, which establishes such rights at hospitals accepting Medicare and Medicaid, is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Talevski family against Health and Hospital Corp. for running a nursing home where their late relative suffered abuse in violation of their rights.

According to Health and Hospital Corp., the Talevskis shouldn't be permitted to file a lawsuit at all to enforce a federal law.

According to recent legal precedent, Section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 allows private citizens to file lawsuits to enforce federal laws like Medicaid. The law was initially passed to allow Black people who had once been in slavery to sue state or local officials who had terrorised them or denied their rights in a way that contravened federal law.

The KKK Act was interpreted by the Warren Court in 1961 to permit a private right of action against police officers who use excessive force. Since then, it has developed into a crucial tool for citizens to make sure that state governments do not infringe on their rights by failing to adhere to federal law.

A state government opposed to Medicaid might decide to disable the programme for millions of people in the state if the court ends the private right of action to compel states to follow federal Medicaid guidelines. The food stamp programme SNAP and other federal programmes run by state governments might also experience a similar effect.