Nearly three months after the last consequential Supreme Court term, justices have returned to Washington, D.C., for their first closed-door conference of the fall term.
The nine justices, including the newest member of the high court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, convened privately on Wednesday for the annual “long conference” to review cert petitions that were filed over the summer. But before deliberating on which petitions to take up for the term, they likely discussed the status of the unprecedented leaked draft opinion investigation while deciding whether to continue audio broadcasts of oral arguments this term.
Starting with Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices will go around the table in order of seniority to speak on matters the high court still needs to address before the term begins next week. As part of an unwritten rule, no justice is allowed to speak twice until they have all spoken once.
TIMELINE OF A LEAK: SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THINK ROE MYSTERY COULD BE SOLVED SOON
Today at SCOTUS: The justices meet privately for their annual “long conference” to review cert petitions that have rolled in over the summer. They’ll also likely discuss the status of the Dobbs leak investigation and whether to continue live audio of oral arguments this term.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) September 28, 2022
Roberts said earlier this month that he was “looking forward” to members of the public returning to the Supreme Court this term, though there has yet to be any word on whether the previous COVID-19 measures that barred the public from entry will be lifted this fall.
Both Justices Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan have acknowledged that the May 2 leak investigation could soon have an update, though there is no concrete answer on whether a perpetrator has been identified or what new information will be available to the public.
Nevertheless, the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion, which signaled to the nation that a 6-3 majority of the justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to impose laws severely restricting abortion access, corresponded with polling that showed a record low in public confidence in the court as an institution, a topic that the justices could address among each other during the closed-door meeting on Wednesday.
NINE KEY CASES SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR IN 2022-23 SESSION
During the annual meeting, justices typically only choose a select few cases to take up among a backlog of nearly 1,000 petitions. Many cases are likely to be denied following the conference.
Although the justices are already poised to address difficult questions surrounding LGBT rights, affirmative action, and voting rights, here are some petitions that justices could accept in addition to its highly anticipated fall 2022-23 term.
MyPillow founder Mike Lindell: MyPillow v. US Dominion
MyPillow founder and staunch Trump ally Mike Lindell petitioned the high court to toss out a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over his extensive and unsubstantiated public claims that the voting technology company was responsible for fraud during the 2020 election.
Trump-era gun bump stock ban: Gun Owners of America v. Garland & Aposhian v. Garland
Justices are considering two cases challenging the Trump administration’s ban on gun bump stocks, which make semi-automatic guns fire in rapid succession, that came after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. While the issue is not technically a Second Amendment case, an attorney at New Civil Liberties Alliance told the Washington Examiner that the matter at issue is whether bump stocks qualify as illegal “machine guns” under federal law.
Justice Department filter teams: Korf v. United States
The Supreme Court has been tapped to determine when it is appropriate for the Justice Department to use “filter teams” to analyze potentially privileged material during its investigations. This matter has become a heightened topic since the FBI’s seizure of documents at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August.
The former president was granted a “special master,” or a former federal judge, to review specific documents that otherwise would have needed to be screened by a DOJ filter team. Should the high court agree to take up this case, it would provide clarity on when using a group of government lawyers who are not part of the investigation is applicable and when a special master is needed to oversee a certain case.
