SCOTUS New Term Begins With Glossip V. Oklahoma

The United States Supreme Court is back in session this week for its new term with some high-profile cases on the docket.

Compared to last term, which was capped by the landmark presidential immunity ruling, the 2024-2025 term appears to have fewer major, high-impact cases, but already this week there's a case that could impact the purchase of certain firearms and a case, set to be argued Wednesday, that has life or death consequences for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip.

 "This is not partisan, it's not political, this is simply rule of law," Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said in an interview Tuesday in Washington.

 Attorney General Drummond appealed the state's 1998 conviction of Glossip to the Supreme Court, he says, because, after careful study, he became convinced state prosecutors did not follow the rule of law in trying and ultimately sentencing Glossip to death.

 "If Oklahomans are going to have death penalty convictions in our state," said Drummond, "we deserve to know with absolute certainty and finality that the inmate was given a fair trial. And in this instance, it is my humble opinion that he was not given a fair trial."

 Glossip is on death row for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese at the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, which Van Treese owned and Glossip managed. It is undisputed that Justin Sneed, not Glossip, swung the bat that killed Van Treese, but Sneed testified for the state that Glossip paid him $10,000 to commit the murder.

 Sneed's testimony, which kept him from getting the death penalty, was the only thing connecting Glossip to the crime. 

Drummond, a Republican, says he has taken quite a bit of heat for his efforts to get Glossip a new trial, but he says, as unpopular as his actions, in this case, may be with some, he is obligated to try and do what's right under the law. 

"I discovered that the state of Oklahoma knew that the star witness withheld the truth and we didn't correct that star witness," Drummond explained. "And I also know that certain information was withheld from Mr. Glossip's defense team, and that's not fair. Now, is Mr. Glossip guilty? I believe he is. But was he given a fair trial? He was not." 

Glossip v. Oklahoma will cap the first week of the Court's new term. Other cases of note include the appeal of a Tennessee law -- similar to Oklahoma's -- banning gender-affirming care for minors; Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun companies for allegedly aiding in the illegal trafficking of firearms; a Texas law requiring that pornographic websites verify the age of users to prevent minors from accessing them; and the Biden administration 2022 rule classifying ghost gun kits as firearms.

 That case, Garland v. Vanderstok, was argued Tuesday morning, with justices appearing skeptical of the defendants' argument that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had exceeded its authority in issuing the rule.

"What we saw today," Eric Tirschwell, Chief Litigation Counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, told reporters following oral arguments, "was the ghost gun industry's fiction that it is not selling firearms crashed into a brick wall of reality in front of the justices." 

Similarly, the justices' questions during Glossip arguments may indicate how a majority might rule, but Drummond says it is absolutely appropriate that they have the final say. "It's the most significant court in the world, it is heady, it should be held in the highest of esteem," Drummond said. "And I'm excited and eager to be there tomorrow."

Glossip v. Oklahoma is the only case on the docket for Wednesday. Arguments are scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. ET.