This week, the U.S. Supreme Court commenced its new term with a pivotal case concerning the regulation of ghost guns—firearms that can be assembled at home from kits, lacking traceable serial numbers and not requiring background checks. The justices deliberated on whether the federal government can impose regulations on ghost guns similar to those applied to firearms manufactured by licensed producers.

During the proceedings, the justices expressed concerns about potential government overreach. The case echoes last term's bump stock decision, where the Court rejected a ban on bump stocks, questioning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' authority to classify them as machine guns. Both cases revolve around statutory interpretation rather than constitutional law, highlighting an ongoing trend at the Supreme Court to reassess the power of federal agencies.

Justice Elena Kagan raised a critical point regarding the Gun Control Act, enacted in 1968, questioning whether agencies are overstepping their bounds by addressing new issues that Congress has not yet legislated. Conversely, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the Court's role is to determine the extent of authority Congress has delegated to these agencies.

The Biden administration's defense of its 2022 rule on ghost guns, which aims to clarify the definition of firearms under the 1968 Act, appeared to resonate with a majority of the justices. This contrasts with the bump stock case, where the Court was skeptical of the abrupt policy change initiated by the Trump administration following a mass shooting.

Looking ahead, the Supreme Court's docket includes around 40 cases, with several themes emerging. Gun-related cases remain prominent, including a lawsuit from Mexico against gun manufacturers like Smith and Wesson, alleging complicity in the trafficking of firearms to drug cartels. Additionally, cases involving agency authority are set to be significant, including challenges to the Food and Drug Administration's marketing decisions for e-cigarettes and disputes over nuclear waste storage regulations.

The Court is also poised to address First Amendment issues related to social media and age verification laws, as well as contentious cultural topics, such as medical treatments for transgender minors. As the term unfolds, the Supreme Court's decisions could have far-reaching implications on both regulatory authority and social issues.