POLITICS Guns, God and abortion are on the American Taliban Court's docket this term:

[CousinIT]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/01/supreme-court-new-term-major-cases.html

The Supreme Court’s new term starts next week, but its critics are already furious.

For the first time in the 19 months of the Covid pandemic, oral arguments will be made in person rather than virtual.

The nine justices will consider pivotal cases that broach some of the most contentious issues in American politics — including religion, guns and abortion — with plenty of space left on the calendar. But courtroom dramas this term may be matched or even eclipsed by several outside pressures facing the institution.

Adding to the tension surrounding the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for Covid days ahead of the new term. He is fully vaccinated and was showing no signs of symptoms, the court said Friday.

Here are some of the big cases the justices will hear:

A new challenge to Roe v. Wade
A fight over a New York state gun law
A case regarding aid for religious schools
A battle over alleged discrimination against HIV patients
A case over claims that the FBI infiltrated a mosque

. . .

[melm00se]

1. cert petitions and questions asked

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett

New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense.

The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Carson v. Makin

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), this Court held that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school’s religious status. This Court acknowledged, but did not resolve, the question of whether a state may nevertheless exclude families and schools based on the religious use to which a student’s aid might be put at a school. In the decision below, the First Circuit upheld a religious exclusion in Maine’s tuition assistance program on the ground that the exclusion does not bar students from choosing to attend schools with a religious status, but rather bars them from using their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.

The question presented is:

Does a state violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction?

CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe

Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) creates a private right of action for discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, and disability in federally funded health programs and activities. 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a). This private right of action incorporates the “enforcement mechanisms” of other federal antidiscrimination statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, which prohibits disability discrimination.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and by extension the ACA, provides a disparate-impact cause of action for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination.
2. If section 504 and the ACA create disparate-impact claims, whether such claims extend to the facially neutral terms and conditions of health insurance plans.

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

Section 1806 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., governs the “use of information” obtained or derived from electronic surveillance for foreign-intelligence purposes under FISA. 50 U.S.C. 1806. Section 1806(c) and (d) require the federal or a state government to provide notice to an aggrieved person whenever it intends to introduce such information as evidence in any proceedings against that person. Section 1806(e) affords the aggrieved person the opportunity to move to suppress any such information that was not obtained in compliance with FISA. And Section 1806(f) establishes special in camera and ex parte procedures to determine the admissibility of such evidence, if the Attorney General attests that a typical adversarial hearing would harm the national security of the United States.

The question presented is as follows:

Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Questions presented

1. Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

2. Whether the validity of of pre-viability law that protects women's health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should analyzed under Casey's "undue burden" standard or Hellerstedt's balancing of benefits and burdens.

3. Whether abortion providers have third party standing to invalidate a law that protects women's health from the dangers of late-term abortions.