The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in a pair of cases that test whether the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment bars government officials from blocking their critics on social media platforms. The question is whether social media activity should be deemed official action that is subject to limits on the government’s ability to restrict speech. One case involves parents in California who were blocked from the personal Twitter accounts of school board members, while another looks at a suit against a Michigan city official who blocked a state resident on Facebook. SCOTUSblog reports on the cases.

A group of Tennessee families and doctors have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that allowed the state to enforce a ban on gender transition medical treatments for minors. In September, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals allowed Tennessee to enforce the ban, saying the law does not discriminate on the basis of age or sex. Families first sued the state in April and within weeks, the U.S. Justice Department joined the suit. A federal district judge had temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law. If the high court agrees to take up the case, it would be its first consideration of transgender medical treatment restrictions, according to the Tennessean. The ACLU of Tennessee has the filing and more on the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the Biden administration's request to put on hold a preliminary injunction constraining how White House and other federal officials communicate with social media platforms to remove content believed to be misinformation. Reuters reports that the justices also agreed to decide the merits of the administration's appeal of the lower court ruling. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch publicly dissented from the decision. The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and a group of social media users sued federal officials, accusing them of unlawfully helping to suppress conservative-leaning speech on major social medial platforms. Lower courts found that administration officials likely coerced the companies into censoring certain posts in violation of the constitution's free speech protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court today opted not to intervene in a legal fight over Louisiana's disputed map of congressional districts. Reuters reports that the decision could potentially delay the adoption of a new map to replace a Republican-drawn map that was found to unlawfully dilute the clout of Black voters. More than a year ago, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick ruled that the original map likely violates the Voting Rights Act. The justices declined to rule on an order halting proceedings on a replacement map.

The U.S. Supreme Court has barred two Texas-based manufacturers from selling products that can be converted into so-called "ghost guns" unless they comply with new federal requirements, National Public Radio reports. Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued regulations that required any disassembled gun parts to carry serial numbers and required anyone buying them to pass a background check. Manufacturers challenged the regulations in court, and federal Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas issued a nationwide injunction. The court’s action voids the lower court order and a decision upholding the order from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing the regulations to go into effect pending further litigation.

Fall out from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action continues with ramifications for law firms, law schools and private organizations. The American Alliance for Equal Rights has dropped its suit against Perkins Coie’s fellowship program after the law firm made changes to eligibility criteria, Reuters reports. But the group said today it would sue three other firms – Winston & Strawn, Hunton Andrews & Kurth and Adams and Reese – if they do not change their law student diversity fellowship programs. Bloomberg Law has that story. In other news, Yale and Harvard are among law schools saying they will eliminate “diversity statements” in their application processes, Law.com reports. Finally, an appeals court has blocked a venture capital fund from awarding grants to businesses run by Black women. That move reverses a lower court’s decision, according to Reuters.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider a bid by a former West Virginia mining company executive to make it easier for public figures to sue news organizations for defamation, Reuters reports. The case would have challenged longstanding protections for media set by the court in 1964. The justices turned away former Massey Energy CEO Donald Blankenship's appeal of a lower court's decision that threw out his defamation lawsuit against major media outlets including Fox News and MSNBC for characterizing him as a "felon" during his unsuccessful 2018 run for the U.S. Senate. Blankenship was convicted in 2015 of a federal conspiracy offense, a misdemeanor, after a 2010 mine explosion that killed 29 coal miners. He had asked the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark ruling, which set stringent limits on defamation claims by public officials under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to South Carolina’s congressional redistricting map next Wednesday, NC Newsline reports. In Alexander v. SC State Conference of the NAACP, the plaintiffs argue that the state legislature adopted a racially discriminatory map last year, moving hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians to different congressional districts and lowering the Black populations in all but one district. They contend that the maneuver denied Black voters the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. A lower court agreed, calling the map a “stark racial gerrymander.” The state legislature appealed the decision, denying any discriminatory motive.

The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term today with arguments in a criminal sentencing case, SCOTUSblog reports. Tomorrow, the justices will consider the first of at least three disputes that could result in new limits on the authority of regulatory agencies. Axios has more on that case. Other issues to be heard this term include a review of state laws that prevent social media platforms from taking down certain posts, the right of domestic abusers to have guns, Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement, and the FBI’s “no-fly” list for terrorism suspects. The new term begins as questions linger about the need for an ethics code for the justices. A series of articles over the summer from Pro Publica has raised concerns about justices and their involvement with wealthy donors. The court's website indicates that it plans to continue to provide live audio of oral arguments this term, and recorded audio is posted daily following arguments. In related news, a new stamp honoring former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was issued today timed with the opening of the court's new session, Bloomberg Law reports.

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a request by Alabama officials to halt a lower court's ruling that rejected the state's electoral map for being unlawfully biased against Black voters, reports Reuters. The court's action leaves intact a decision made on Sept. 5 by a federal three-judge panel in Birmingham which ruled that that state’s electoral map must be redrawn. That ruling was the second time the court has thrown out a plan enacted by the Republican-controlled Alabama state legislature. The panel noted in its ruling that they were "deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires." More than one-quarter of Alabama's residents are Black. A court-appointed special master and cartographer will now oversee a new map ahead of next year's election.