The U.S. Supreme Court recently opted not to hear a series of contentious legal disputes involving school admissions, gender support plans, and gun licensing, an announcement that offers a glimpse into the judiciary’s current priorities.
In the education sector, the Court declined to review a challenge by parents concerning a Wisconsin school district’s plan to support transgender and non-binary students. The group, Parents Protecting Our Children, argued against the district’s guidance, claiming it interfered with parental rights. However, both a federal district and an appellate court dismissed the case, citing a lack of standing because the group did not demonstrate that any member’s child had been directly affected. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the lone justice inclined toward granting the petition, though his rationale remains unspecified. More details about the case can be found in a detailed report from SCOTUSblog.
In a similar vein, the Court sidestepped a challenge on Boston’s elite public high schools’ admissions policy, which had been temporarily altered in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners alleged unconstitutional discrimination against white and Asian-American students. Nevertheless, the policy was not evaluated as no longer active and replaced by a new system considering various non-racial factors. Justice Samuel Alito, backed by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, maintaining that the lower courts failed to recognize intentional racial discrimination.
The Court also did not engage in a case involving a Hawaiian man who was prosecuted for carrying a handgun without a license, notwithstanding the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision questioning restrictive gun laws. The man, Christopher Wilson, argued that the requirement to possess a license infringed upon his Second Amendment rights. The Court, however, refrained from involvement given the case’s early stage, and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch noted the impropriety of denying one’s right to challenge without applying for a license first.
These decisions illustrate the Supreme Court’s current stance on issues of individual rights intersecting with educational policies and firearm regulations. The Court continues to tread cautiously, perhaps signaling a preference to engage later when similar cases may offer clearer legal questions or broader ramifications. For an in-depth look into these cases and the Court’s reasoning, see the original piece by Howe on the Court.