As the Supreme Court returns to its bench for oral arguments in the most high-profile cases, guns and abortion are prominent topics.

The justices will hear back to back arguments Monday in Whole Woman’s Health and United States against Texas. These cases challenge a Texas restrictive law banning most abortions within six weeks.

Two days later, the court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case that centers on the Second Amendment’s protections of the right to carry guns in public.

These cases will deal with the two most polarizing and fraught topics in American politics. a court that had already stoked furious backlashpretenses of politicization, even before the new term started. Experts suggest that some of these cases were heard because of the court’s conservatism during Trump’s administration.

These are the facts:

On Monday, the court will address questions regarding the Texas law’s structure. S.B. 8, rather than grapple with the legal precedent for abortion — including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — that the state is accused of violating.

S.B. Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed S.B. In May, Greg Abbott signed it. It went into effect on September 8. By banning abortions in Texas, it prohibits most of them. The procedure is prohibited after detection of the heartbeat of the foetus. This occurs as soon as the sixth week.

S.B. 8 instead of assigning state officials to enforce the ban for six weeks, 8 delegated that power to the private citizens who can sue for at least $10,000 anyone who “aids and abets abortion”.

Critics label this loophole an enforcement mechanism, which is designed to avoid responsibility or judicial oversight. Oral arguments are being heard by the Supreme Court from both the Department of Justice, and a group of providers of abortion. Both of these parties filed legal challenges to Texas officials.

Texas argued that since the abortion law is not enforced by the state, they are not the ones who should defend it in court. “No state executive enforces” [the law]Texas wrote Wednesday in a 93-page briefAccording to the highest court, the injunction was an inappropriate attempt to enjoin law and not a person.

The Justice Department wrote in its own court brief S.B. is already being viewed by other states. 8 to be a model and that “if Texas wins, then no Court decision is secure.”

On Dec. 1, the justices will hear arguments in Dobbs, v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This case is directly targeting rulings that uphold abortion rights over decades.

Follow along Monday’s court watchers via livestream audio — a novelty of the coronavirus pandemic — will be listening closely for hints about how certain justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, will approach Roe and Casey in that case and others in the near future.

Jaime Santos a partner with the Supreme Court appellate litigation and Supreme Court practice at Goodwin, stated that everyone would be closely watching the chief judge.

“Of the conservative justices, he is most inclined to protect the principles of stare decisis” — the adherence to precedent in similar cases — “and most concerned about public perceptions of the Court as a fair and independent body,” Santos said.

Just two weeks ago, the court approved Texas’ two cases using a fast-track schedule. This means that oral arguments about Texas’ law will take place in less than two week. Thomas Cooke, a Georgetown University professor of business law, said that the rocket-docket procedure could allow the justices speed up the process and make rulings faster than normal.

In late August, Texas abortion-rights providers and advocates asked the Supreme Court to temporarily stop S.B. 8. It went into effect on September 1st at midnight. However, the court was unable to respond until several hours after the law became effective.

In a late-night ruling, a bare majority of five justices — including all three who were appointed by former President Donald Trump — voted to deny the advocates’ emergency requestIt was largely procedural. Roberts supported the three liberal judges, writing in disapproval that the “statutory scheme before” the court was not only uncommon, but also unprecedented.

According to abortion providers, the Texas 5-4 ruling has resulted in hundreds of Texas patients being denied treatment, and clinics in nearby states having been overcrowded.

Critics include President Joe Biden fumed. Supreme Court approval rating sank to a new low, and calls to reform the high court — already a topic of study in the Biden administration — grew even louder.

In rapid succession, several justices including Clarence Thomas (Samuel Alito) and Amy Coney Barrett (Amy Coney Barrett), spoke out to defend the court. This court does not consist of just one judge. bunch of partisan hacksBarrett said, reportedly in September.

In the same month, abortion providers who had requested a denial were denied. filed another petition to the high court. They asked for the justices’ swift action to review their challenge of the law even though the litigation at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was still pending.

The DOJ also sued Texas in Federal Court, winning an injunction which was later suspended by an appeals court. The agency approached the Supreme Court. asking it to block the Texas lawBy annulling the lower court’s decision not to reinstate abortion ban

Late October saw the Supreme Court agree to take both cases as expedited.

Shinn and Ramirez were both originally scheduled to be argued on Nov. 1.

The petition for the Supreme Court to review the case argues that a lower court’s ruling upholding the New York law was “untenable.”

a brief in July, petitioners argued that the language of the Second Amendment — securing “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” — refers to two separate rights. The petitioners argued that “keep” means being able own arms, and “bear” means being able carry them.

Letitia James, New York’s Attorney General, had in February argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t take the case up.

James stated that the law was consistent with the historic scope of the Second Amendment. It directly promotes New York’s imperative interests in crime prevention and public safety.” wrote

More than 10 years ago, the most important Supreme Court decision on guns was made in District of Columbia v. HellerWhen the court decided that the Second Amendment provides protection for the individual’s right to possess a gun in self-defense, 

The court was established last year. declined to issue a substantial ruling in another case about gun regulations in New York, which has some of the strictest such rules in the country. Trump’s second appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh urged his coworkers to listen to another Second Amendment case.