The Supreme Court’s new term began on the first Monday of October. As I write this, the Court has agreed to consider about 25 cases and will add about 40-50 more in the coming months. The Justices will hear arguments in these cases until the end of April, and announce decisions by the end of June.

While the judicial branch in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have become more powerful than they were designed to be, the American people are poorly equipped to understand and monitor what they do. Here are some suggestions to remedy that.

First, the public can literally watch the Court’s arguments for the first time since March 2020. During the COVID pandemic, the Court provided a live audio feed but only the Justices, the lawyers, and the press could be present. That arrangement actually had an advantage. Not only could the public listen to the argument as it happened, but could make better sense of it because the Justices took turns asking questions.

>>> Restoring the Constrained Judicial Vision

Second, the public can follow not only what the Court does—that is, its decisions in particular cases—but how the Court does it. Several cases already on the docket are worth watching:

• In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court will decide whether a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the First Amendment. Lori Smith, the Christian owner of a graphic design firm, wants to start making wedding websites but opposes same-sex marriage and wants to post a statement explaining her religious objection. A state law, however, prohibits discrimination by businesses open to the public, including even making such a statement. Smith sued on free speech grounds, and the lower courts ruled against her.
• Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith involves the work of a famous artist. Andy Warhol created a series of prints by making some aesthetic changes to a 1981 copyrighted photograph of the musician Prince. The photographer sued for copyright infringement; the Andy Warhol Foundation claimed the changes amounted to “fair use” of the photograph because they transformed it into a new work. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the second Circuit disagreed, concluding that the prints remained “recognizably derived” from the original.
• In Merrill v. Milligan, Alabama voters and organizations allege that the state’s redistricting plan following the 2020 census violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. The challengers claim that the plan has too few districts in which a majority of voters are black. The lower court blocked the new map from going into effect.
• Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency involves how the EPA applies a key provision of the Clean Water Act. In 2007, the EPA blocked Michael and Chantell Sackett from building a home because their Idaho residential lot, which had no surface water, qualified as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. A 2006 Supreme Court decision suggested two different standards for defining this term, and, in this case, the Ninth Circuit used the broader standard to rule in favor of the EPA. This case will allow a majority to clarify how this Clean Water Act provision must be applied.
• Finally, two cases brought by the group Students for Fair Admissions challenge the admission process at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina for discriminating against Asian American applicants. The cases had originally been combined, but the Court separated them so that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, could participate in the North Carolina case. Both Harvard and UNC admit that race is an admissions factor, but argue that this is permissible under a 2006 Supreme Court decision involving the University of Michigan Law School. The lower courts in both cases upheld the schools’ admissions policies.

These and other cases the Supreme Court will tackle are important not only for what the Court does, that is, which side wins in the end, but how the Court reaches that result. Justice Clarence Thomas has explained that the judicial task involves “interpret[ing] and apply[ing] written law to the facts of particular cases.” Some of these cases involve the Constitution, while other involve statutes, and the Court’s method of interpreting those written provisions will identify how much power the Justices think they have.

>>> Judicial Independence Is an Obstacle To Power, Necessary for Liberty

The Constitution and statutes, like almost any other written document we encounter in our daily lives, are the meaning of their words. Whoever controls what the words mean, therefore, controls what the Constitution and statutes really are. Does the Supreme Court have so much control over our laws that they mean whatever five Justices say they mean? As America’s founders designed our system of government, the right answer is no.

When the Supreme Court struck down a restrictive law regarding firearm possession earlier this year, Justice Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority that the Constitution’s “meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.” Even Justice Jackson, appointed by President Biden, repeatedly said during her confirmation hearing that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its “original public meaning.” This principle is at the heart of evaluating how the Supreme Court interprets and applies written law to reach its decisions.

Now that the Court’s term is underway, everyone should follow what this branch of their government does and how it exercises the power the Constitution has granted to it. The Court publicly announces it decisions, and offers detailed explanation of how it reached them, so we can all be more informed and engaged citizens.