The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate so-called “ghost guns” in the first week of the 2024-25 term in October, followed the next day by an unusual death-penalty case – in which the state’s attorney general supports the condemned man’s efforts to overturn his conviction and sentence. Garland v. VanDerStok and Glossip v. Oklahoma headline the Supreme Court’s October argument calendar, which was released on Friday morning.

The November argument calendar, released at the same time, includes cases brought under the Medicare Act, immigration law, and securities fraud laws.

The justices will hear nine arguments over five days in October, followed by seven arguments over five days in November. Although the court was initially slow in granting petitions for review for the 2024-25 term, those numbers mean that the justices will hear more cases in October and November 2024 than they did in the same months in 2023, when they heard six arguments over five days in October and seven arguments over six days in November.

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the justices will consider a challenge to a rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives that regulates “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that almost anyone can assemble from parts, often purchased in a kit. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a decision by a federal district judge in Fort Worth, Texas, concluding that the law was inconsistent with federal firearms laws. The Biden administration then came to the Supreme Court, which had already agreed to allow the federal government to enforce the rule while the challenge continued, asking the justices to review the 5th Circuit’s decision. The justices agreed in April to take up the case, which is a statutory question and does not involve the Second Amendment.

And in Glossip v. Oklahoma, the justices will review the case of Richard Glossip, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, the owner of the Oklahoma City motel where Glossip worked. Glossip asked a state court to set aside his conviction and sentence last year, arguing that he had received new information that the key witness against him had testified falsely about the witness’s mental health. In April 2023, an attorney appointed by the state’s attorney general, Gentner Drummond, to conduct an independent investigation of Glossip’s case concluded that Glossip should receive a new trial, but – even with Drummond’s support – the Oklahoma courts declined to set aside his conviction and sentence.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to put Glossip’s execution on hold to give them more time to consider his appeals, and in January of this year they agreed to take up his case. The justices appointed Christopher Michel, a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts who has argued 10 cases before the court, to defend the state court’s decision to leave Glossip’s conviction and sentence in place.

The October argument schedule

Williams v. Washington (Oct. 7) – Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is necessary to bring federal civil rights claims in state court.

Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger (Oct. 7) – Whether a plaintiff (here, a dog owner alleging that the designation of specialized dog food as “prescription” dog food is misleading) whose state-court lawsuit has been transferred by the defendants to federal court can seek to have the case sent back to state court by removing all references to federal law.

Garland v. VanDerStok (Oct. 8) – Whether the rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating “ghost guns” is consistent with federal firearms laws.

Lackey v. Stinnie (Oct. 8) – Whether a plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of receiving an award of attorney’s fees, when there is no final ruling on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.

Glossip v. Oklahoma (Oct. 9) – Whether Oklahoma violated a defendant’s constitutional rights when prosecutors suppressed evidence that their key witness was under a psychiatrist’s care.

Medical Marijuana v. Horn (Oct. 15) – Whether a commercial truck driver who lost his job after he failed a drug test can bring a claim under federal racketeering laws against the makers of the product that he says was responsible for that failed test.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Oct. 15) – Whether courts can review a decision to revoke approval of a petition for an immigrant visa on the ground that the government had initially misapplied nondiscretionary criteria during the approval process, and when the applicant would have had a right to review of an initial decision denying review of the application.

Bufkin v. McDonough (Oct. 16) – Whether, when federal law instructs the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to “take due account of the” application of the idea that veterans should receive the benefit of the doubt on close issues involving veterans’ law, the Veterans Court is required to review the factual findings of the Veterans Administration for clear error, or whether it must conduct a more thorough review that considers whether the veteran actually received the benefit of the doubt.

San Francisco v. EPA (Oct. 16) – Whether the limitations in the permit issued to San Francisco for its discharges of wastewater into the Pacific Ocean violate the Clean Water Act

The November argument schedule

Wisconsin Bell v. United States ex rel. Heath (Nov. 4) – Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission’s E-rate programs are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra (Nov. 5) – Whether the phrase “entitled … to benefits” means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera (Nov. 5) – What burden of proof applies to an employer arguing that it is exempt from the general requirement, imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, to pay employees overtime when they work more than 40 hours per week.

Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank (Nov. 6) – Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that post does not present any known risk of ongoing or future business harm. [Disclosure: My husband, Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog, represented the respondents in the court of appeals.]

Velazquez v. Garland (Nov. 12) – Whether, when the time for a noncitizen to voluntarily leave the country ends on a weekend or holiday, the noncitizen who files a motion to reopen immigration proceedings can avoid penalties for failing to leave the country by filing that motion on the following business day.

Delligatti v. United States (Nov. 12) – Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Nvidia Corp v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB (Nov. 13) — What pleading standards apply to show knowledge or intent for securities-fraud claims that rely on internal company documents.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.