In the last couple of years, the U.S. Supreme Court – with its 6-3 conservative majority – has been in the spotlight, thanks in part to a flurry of rulings that have upended parts of American life.

What You Need To Know

  • The Supreme Court's new term begins on Monday, with a number of significant cases on the docket, and lingering questions about the ethics of its nine justices

  • From racial gerrymandering to Republican-backed attempts to restrict social media, and even a copyright case involving a Flo Rida song, the cases the justices are considering this term could have major implications

  • The high court, just one year removed from the landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, could also issue another monumental decision on abortion this term

  • According to a Gallup poll, the Supreme Court's approval rating sits at a record-low 40%

From the landmark ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade last year to striking down affirmative action in college admissions and President Joe Biden's student loan plan at the end of its last term, the high court is no doubt on the minds of many Americans – and, if polling is any indication, not in a good way, with confidence in the Supreme Court holding at a record-low 40%, per Gallup.

The court's new term begins on Monday, with a number of significant cases on the docket – and lingering questions about the ethics of its nine justices.

From racial gerrymandering to Republican-backed attempts to restrict social media, and even a copyright case involving a Flo Rida song, the cases the justices are considering this term could have major implications.

"I think the court's coming term raises a number of hot-button issues," David Cole, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told Spectrum News.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review laws enacted by GOP-led legislatures in Florida and Texas, signed by Republican governors in both states, that seek to regulate speech on social media platforms like Facebook, X and TikTok. Advocates for those laws claim that social media companies have liberal biases and restrict voices on the right, while tech experts say that those laws prevent platforms from restricting hate speech and extremism.

“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” Chris Marchese, litigation director for NetChoice, said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

An appeals court upheld the Texas law while striking down the Florida statute; but the high court put the Texas law on hold while the legal battle over it continues.

That's not the only case involving social media that the high court agreed to hear: On Oct. 31, it will hear arguments in a case involving public officials blocking critics from commenting on their social media posts. It could also hear a case involving executive branch members communicating with social media platforms about controversial posts.

In terms of the social media cases, Cole argues that the Texas and Florida one is probably the most significant.

"That case will really determine whether the First Amendment applies full force to social media, or whether there's going to be some new approach to social media platforms that allows the government to regulate the kind of content decisions that those those entities make," he said.

On Nov. 7, the high court will hear a case involving a clash between "red flag" laws – which allow a court to bar a person believed to be a threat to themselves or others from owning or buying a gun – and the Second Amendment. The high court's conservative majority has expanded gun rights in recent years, most notably striking down New York's concealed carry law last year.

"The question will be whether the court will modify its historical approach to recognize that ... we need a Constitution that accounts for the fact that society evolves over time," Cole said.

Oct. 11 will see the Supreme Court take up a case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina. The high court this year, in a surprise decision, voted to strike down Alabama's Congressional map, arguing that it diluted the power of Black voters, and ordered the state to redraw a second majority Black district; when state lawmakers refused and submitted a map that did not fit those guidelines, the court recently ruled the same way, ordering a special master to create new maps.

"The Supreme Court has said for a couple of decades now [that] you cannot sort voters based on race, just you can't admit students to college based on race, you cannot sort voters based on race," Cole said. "In this case, the South Carolina legislature defends its actions by saying 'actually, we didn't use race. We were using only partisan political data,' but the lower court found, no, that they used race and that violates the Constitution."

One case that the high court has not yet agreed to take up, but will likely do so, is the battle over the most commonly used form of abortion. A little more than one year removed from its last landmark abortion ruling, the Justice Department and the manufacturer of abortion drug mifepristone asked the high court to reverse an appeals court ruling that would restrict access to the medication.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, sided with a conservative legal group in a broad ruling that challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's longstanding approval of the drug. Within an hour, a federal judge in Washington offered a ruling that directly contradicted Kacsmaryk's ruling. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed parts of Kacsmaryk's decision, namely the aspect that challenged the FDA's two decade approval, but would implement restrictions ont he drug.

The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold as it reviews the case.

"This is a huge decision, it's a huge decision for the rights of women to get access to medication abortion without having to travel very long distances totally unnecessarily," Cole said. But it's also a huge decision with respect to the pharmaceutical industry, because if anybody with this kind of nebulous connection to a to a drug can challenge the FDA's approval of a drug, that's going to make it [a] much more risky proposition for pharmaceuticals to invest the money that they need to invest in to create drugs and get them approved in the first place."

"That's a very, very big case," he added. "I think the court likely will grant review."

Also on the docket this term: A dispute over the FBI's no fly list and a copyright case involving the 2008 Flo Rida hit "In the Ayer."

The new term also begins with the court shadowed by new revelations about some justices receiving gifts and benefits they never disclosed. But Chief Justice John Roberts has so far resisted pressure from Democrats in Congress to adopt an ethics code.

“It ought not be a difficult question," Cole said. "Should Supreme Court justices be required to be ethical, in the same way that every other federal judge in the country is? The answer that should be yes.”