It has not been mentioned much in this presidential race, but the makeup of the Supreme Court might hang in the balance. It was the deciding issue in 2016, as then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rolled the dice and held off on confirming a replacement for the late, great Antonin Scalia until after the election. Donald Trump then proved himself during his first term, nominating three of the Court’s current justices and giving the Court a solid conservative majority.

Thankfully, only one opening — that of Clinton-appointed left-wing Justice Stephen Breyer — has arisen on the Court through Joe Biden’s presidency, but there’s a good chance of more openings over the next four years. At age 76, Justice Clarence Thomas is not getting any younger, and Justice Samuel Alito is only two years younger. The next oldest is low-information lefty Justice Sonia Sotomayor at age 70.

While 70 isn’t considered old for a justice today, Sotomayor is a Type 1 diabetic, having been diagnosed when she was seven years old. Given her medical situation, Democrats have become increasingly concerned. It was for this reason that earlier this year, Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal called on Sotomayor to step down and give Biden, with a Democrat-controlled Senate, another left-wing justice to accompany his first pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson, rather than risk Trump winning the election.

Blumenthal wants to avoid a repeat of 2020, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death allowed Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, tilting the Court further rightward. Indeed, it’s thanks to this conservative Court that significant decisions like Roe v. Wade and Affirmative Action in college admissions were deemed unconstitutional, and the Big Government Chevron doctrine was overturned.

But regardless of our next president’s judicial nominees, the Court will decide some significant cases over the next year. “Gender identity” will be front and center in [United States v. Skrmetti](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/. The case deals with a Tennessee law that bans giving gender-bending treatment to minors. This includes barring the administration of puberty-blocking drugs and gender mutilation surgeries. How the Court rules here will have huge ramifications for the “transgender” issue across the nation.

Another major case targets the Second Amendment. In Garland v. VanDerStok, the issue in question is so-called “ghost guns.” Americans have a long history of home-crafted guns. This has never been illegal, but the Biden-Harris administration has targeted the practice because these firearms can’t be traced. They have dubiously dubbed these “ghost guns” an “acute threat to public safety,” yet there is no evidence backing up this assertion.

A free speech case involving pornography will also be on the docket. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is not about Big Tech censorship of Americans’ online speech; rather, it’s a challenge to a Texas law that requires pornography websites to include age-restriction access. Texas wants to prevent children from easily accessing pornographic websites, while porn peddlers say this violates their users’ privacy rights.

And a High Court term wouldn’t be complete without some climate-related case for the justices to ponder. This one is interesting because it pits the leftist enclave of San Francisco against the leftist Environmental Protection Agency. Water pollution may be the focus of this dispute, but the bigger issue is the federal government trying to flex its enforcement muscles against a local government. Historically, the EPA has given local governments targeted levels of water pollutants and would fine them if those levels were exceeded. But the EPA has since shaken things up, and instead of those specific targets, the agency has adopted a vague warning to avoid “causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards.” San Francisco is understandably befuddled by the opaque standard, asking, “How do we comply with that?” The EPA’s response has been none too helpful, effectively answering, “By complying.” The apparent motive behind the EPA’s vague standard is to keep localities guessing at a moving target as the agency continues to promote the “climate crisis” narrative.

These cases and others will once again reinforce the judiciary’s power to either protect or encroach upon our freedoms.