Trump Department of Justice could change fate of Supreme Court disputes, observers say

The Trump administration is expected to reverse the Biden administration’s opposition to state bans on gender transition treatment for minors, prompting keen interest among legal experts monitoring the Supreme Court’s handling of a challenge to a Tennessee law.

The fates of other high-stakes legal battles, including challenges to ghost guns and flavored vapes, are also unclear with the advent of the Trump administration.

The disputes have been argued and are awaiting decisions at some point before the end of June.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the court has precedent in deciding disputes after arguments when another private party is involved.

“The justices have a lot of discretion,” Mr. Skrmetti said. “There is case law out there from the Supreme Court that as long as a party has litigated it, even if they are not the petitioning party, the case can continue.”

Transgender medical treatment for youths

Mr. Skrmetti is in dispute with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration over a Tennessee law banning transgender medical treatment for youths with gender dysphoria.

The justices heard arguments last week on whether the state law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Biden administration said it does because boys may obtain certain medicines girls cannot and vice versa. The Tennessee solicitor general said the medical needs depend on the condition, not the patient’s gender.

The Trump administration is expected to take a position more in line with Tennessee on transgender youth puberty blockers, hormone therapy and access to sex change surgeries.

Although the case is U.S. v. Skrmetti, the ACLU participated in arguments to represent a group of transgender youths and their families.

Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer representing transgender youths at the Supreme Court, said he cannot predict what the Trump administration will do with the case or how the Supreme Court may handle the change.

“The Supreme Court is certainly not stripped of jurisdiction,” Mr. Strangio said. “The case will have been fully briefed and argued. The case continues, the conflict continues.”

Court watchers anticipate a decision siding with Tennessee as long as the justices retain the dispute.

“I have 90% confidence that Tennessee would win,” said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute.

Flavored vapes

No private litigant is involved in the Food and Drug Administration’s fight over the marketing of flavored vapes.

The case, Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments LLC, dba Triton Distribution, et al., involves the FDA’s rejection of marketing authorization for flavored e-cigarettes or vapes by Triton Distribution, which also has products sold by Vapetasia.

In arguments this month, the federal government said Congress authorized the executive branch to protect those younger than 18 from tobacco through the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

The FDA says the concern about the products’ impact on youths outweighs the companies’ arguments that the flavors would help cigarette smokers quit.

It’s unclear where the Trump administration will stand on flavored vape products and whether the FDA will continue to deny the marketing applications.

“I imagine a lot of Trump supporters like vapes,” said Mr. Shapiro. “I think it is something they will definitely be looking at.”

Ghost guns

The federal government could also reverse course on ghost guns.

Though the first Trump administration supported a ban on bump stocks, the new solicitor general may stay the course.

In the bump stock dispute, Garland v. VanDerStok, gun rights advocates have challenged a 2022 regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that said gun kits that include all the parts, or receivers that include the main body of a weapon that needs only to have the final holes drilled and material scraped away, are close enough to manufactured guns that they fall under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said the high court may dismiss the case if the Trump administration revisits the federal rule.