The Supreme Court will hold a private conference on Tuesday to discuss appellate petitions for high-profile cases such as the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill, high school diversity admission policies and social media censorship laws.
Four of the court’s nine justices would have to vote to hear a case for oral arguments on a petition for certiorari to be scheduled.
Orders from Tuesday’s conference are expected to be released Monday, the start of the court’s 2023 term.
One of the closely watched petitions is from the Justice Department, which is appealing lower court rulings on the use of the abortion pill. The Biden administration wants the high court to weigh in on a lower court’s restrictions on mifepristone.
The pill has remained available during the appeal process, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restricted its use, saying it could not be distributed via mail, which the federal government had attempted to do.
A district court, though, had gone further and said the drug should not have been authorized by the Food and Drug Administration decades ago.
Another abortion-related dispute up for appeal focuses on pro-life counseling outside of abortion clinics — Vitagliano v. County of Westchester. It involves a Catholic woman and occupational therapist who counsels outside of abortion clinics. The New York county’s “bubble zone” law makes it illegal to approach another person to discuss or protest abortion within 100 feet of a reproductive health care facility.
Adam Feldman, Supreme Court scholar and creator of EmpiricalSCOTUS blog, said various groups are interested in this case and whether the high court should weigh in.
“By my last count, there were 18 cert stage amicus briefs, which is on the upper edge of the number of cert stage amicus briefs that have been filed in cases in the past,” Mr. Feldman said.
Meanwhile, parents in Northern Virginia have asked the justices to take up a dispute over Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria and its admissions process, which aims to diversify the student body. Critics say it has discriminated against Asian American students by cutting their representation.
A lower court upheld the school’s policy, but the parents have asked the high court to review it following the justices striking down affirmative action at universities earlier this year.
In addition, court watchers are keen on two cases involving the First Amendment and social media laws.
A Texas law enacted in 2021 prohibits social media companies from removing and moderating content that some might find offensive or hateful. It also requires those companies to disclose certain business practices, such as the use of algorithms.
A federal court in Texas blocked parts of the law from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling but kept the injunction in place, pending appeal.
A Florida law enacted in 2021 places a fine of $25,000 to $250,000 per day on large social media companies that de-platform political candidates.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the law from taking effect over First Amendment concerns.
