WASHINGTON −The Supreme Court is set to resume its sessions on Monday, addressing several critical issues: regulations on firearms, healthcare for transgender minors, and the requirement for adult users to show ID to access adult websites.

The justices are also likely to be drawn into political matters related to the upcoming elections, both before and after Election Day on November 5.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed by both Democrats and Republicans nationwide regarding voting regulations and election processes, which could reach the Supreme Court particularly if the presidential race is closely contested.

“Legal issues often emerge from the political sphere,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in an interview with CBS in September concerning the court’s readiness for upcoming election-related cases. “The Supreme Court must be prepared to engage if that becomes necessary.”

Should former President Donald Trump win, the court may have to revisit the criminal cases against him.

In a significant ruling in July, the majority of justices granted Trump and former presidents immunity, though it remains unclear how this immunity applies to the various charges he faces.

If Trump secures a victory, senior conservative justices may contemplate retirement, allowing him to reshape the court further after having appointed three justices during his first term.

Conversely, if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, there may be speculation about whether Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior liberal justice, will choose to retire.

Before tackling other matters, however, the justices must first address the controversial cases beginning this week.

Did Biden Overreach with ‘Ghost Guns’ and Vape Regulations?

One significant issue on the agenda is whether the Biden administration can enforce regulations on “ghost guns” by mandating that manufacturers conduct background checks for buyers and label their products with serial numbers.

Similar to last term’s discussion on the legality of banning bump stocks (which allow semi-automatic guns to fire like automatic ones), this case does not directly concern the Second Amendment. Instead, it focuses on whether the administration’s regulations align with existing laws or if it is attempting to rewrite gun control legislation, which only Congress has the power to do.

Additionally, the court will examine whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is unfairly stifling the sale of flavored vape pens.

The industry argues that the FDA has effectively banned most flavored e-cigarettes.

The FDA maintains that while some tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes are permissible, it has rejected over a million products that feature candy and other enticing flavors that could appeal to minors.

Both the cases regarding e-cigarettes and ghost guns originated from the New Orleans-based 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a venue known for hearing challenges to federal agency actions, according to Alison LaCroix, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

Such challenges have often had a receptive audience with the Supreme Court, which LaCroix noted, “has shown it is interested in reviewing activities conducted by administrative agencies.”

Can States Mandate Age Checks for Adult Sites?

Two other contentious cases focus on state-level regulations.

In a case from Texas, the court must determine whether imposing age verification requirements on adults for accessing certain online pornography infringes on their free speech rights.

While Texas asserts that the regulation aims to safeguard children, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has joined forces with affected websites, arguing that verifying age online differs from presenting an ID to purchase alcohol or adult magazines. They contend that providing personal information may expose users to the risk of hacking or data breaches.

“There’s a lack of trust about what could happen to their private information once it’s shared online,” said lawyer Jeremy Broggi, who specializes in constitutional and regulatory concerns, during a recent talk at the Cato Institute.

Several states are currently testing various methods to protect children online, which increases the stakes for the pornography regulation case.

Will States Be Allowed to Ban Gender-Affirming Care for Minors?

Many states, around half of the total, have attempted to prohibit gender-affirming healthcare for minors.

The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge from the Biden administration against a ban implemented in Tennessee.

The administration, along with the ACLU, which advocates for families contesting the ban, maintains that the law targets individuals based on their gender. They argue that while a teen designated male at birth can receive testosterone treatments, a teen designated female at birth is denied this option.

Tennessee asserts its “interest in encouraging minors to value their gender” and seeks to ban treatments that may lead minors to develop a negative perception of their gender.

A district court ruled against the state, yet the 6^th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that the law does not constitute discrimination.

The court explained that applying testosterone for gender dysphoria is different from administering it for medical conditions, such as a boy born with an extra X chromosome that results in lower testosterone levels. This was determined in a divided opinion among the judges.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton stated, “States have the discretion to allow different treatments for different medical diagnoses,” as he spoke on behalf of a panel comprised of three judges.

Deepak Gupta, an appellate lawyer who monitors the Supreme Court’s activities, has indicated that this case carries significant implications for states’ authority to oversee medical care for minors. It may also provide insight into a pivotal Supreme Court ruling from 2020, which determined that discrimination based on a person’s gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.

Gupta emphasized, “Clearly, this is a major case of the term,” referring to what otherwise appears to be a quieter term for the court.