As the Supreme Court wraps up its October Term 2024, attention turns to the “relisted” cases that remain on the docket. This term’s final conference, known colloquially as the “mop-up” session, functions as a judicial cleanup. During this period, the justices review cert petitions that haven’t been resolved in previous conferences, adding a note of finality before the court adjourns for its summer recess. Although these discussions aren’t formally listed on the Supreme Court’s online calendar, it’s expected that the outstanding cases will be handled by July 3.
One of the main focal points involves high-profile cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws excluding transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Little v. Hecox, and Petersen v. Doe, state holders argue for preserving the integrity of girls’ and women’s sports, while opponents cite equal protection concerns under the 14th Amendment. These petitions are seen as potential landmarks, especially in the context of constitutional scrutiny of sex-based classifications.
Another critical topic involves the state of Montana’s regulation on abortion, scrutinized in Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana. This case examines whether parental consent laws for minors seeking abortions infringe on privacy rights, a debate further complicated by the argument around parental rights under the 14th Amendment.
Sovereign immunity is another recurring theme, addressed in cases involving the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority and New Jersey Transit Corporation. In Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority v. Good, the question centers on whether MOHELA functions as an “arm of the state,” thus entitled to sovereign immunity protections. Similar issues of immunity are presented in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, addressing whether such entities can be liable for torts in other states.
The concept of sovereign immunity and state responsibility also surface in cases questioning the reach of Heck v. Humphrey, thus limiting Section 1983 civil rights actions. Two such cases, Wilson v. Midland County, Texas and Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, probe if individuals can seek recourse via federal suits without overturning their convictions in state courts first.
For the internet service provider (ISP) community, Grande Communications Networks LLC v. UMG Recordings, Inc. is pivotal. The court is grappling with whether ISPs are liable for contributory copyright infringement when users infringe upon rights after receiving infringement notices. This case closely aligns with the previously accepted Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, making it likely that the petitions will be treated in tandem.
For further details on these cases that are shaping the legal landscape, see the full discussion on SCOTUSblog.