GEOFF BENNETT: A new term for the U.S. Supreme Court kicks off this week.

On the docket are consequential cases that could determine the future of key issues like gun ownership and redistricting.

Looming large over this term are also calls for greater ethics guidelines for the justices.

Our Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle, joins us to preview all that's to come.

It's always great to see you.

Thanks for coming in.

MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": Thank you, Geoff.

Good to see you.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, this new term, only a few cases are scheduled so far.

What are the big ones that you're watching?

MARCIA COYLE: OK, first of all, Geoff, I think this could be a huge term for social media, the owners of social media platforms, as well as the users of social media.

I'm watching four cases under that broad heading.

Two involve laws from Florida and Texas that put restrictions on how social media companies can manage their content.

And that -- and those laws seem to arise from suspicions that social media companies are censoring conservative comments.

And then the two other cases under that umbrella that I'm watching involve public officials who use their personal social media accounts to communicate with their constituents.

Can they block their critics and not violate the First Amendment?

So, it's social media and First Amendment.

Besides that, guns are back, as you mentioned, before the Supreme Court.

This is a really interesting case.

There's a provision in our federal crimes code that prohibits firearm ownership by anyone who's under a domestic violence prevention protection order.

And a lower federal report struck that provision down, said it violated the Second Amendment because it could not pass the test that the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority implemented two terms ago.

And that has caused a lot of frustration among judges, because it's based on history.

They're not historians.

They don't feel they have the tools to try to look up whether these restrictions are restrictions played 100, 200 years ago.

Also, I'm looking at a voting rights challenge.

I think we're going to see a lot of these coming to the court.

This one is from South Carolina.

A three-judge panel said that the South Carolina legislature created a racial gerrymander when it moved roughly 30,000 Black voters out of a district into another district.

South Carolina says, no, race wasn't the motive.

We were trying to shore up a solid Republican district.

And, finally, a long-term goal of conservative businesses and legal organizations has been to rein in what they call the regulatory state or the administrative state, federal agencies that regulate and enforce federal laws.

There are three cases.

Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the three.

It involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been under legal attack since its inception.

This time, the payday lender industry has brought a challenge, claiming that the bureau's unique funding mechanism violates the appropriations clause of the Constitution.

So those are the four that I'm really keeping an eye on.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, as we mentioned, hanging over this term are a host of ethical questions.

Justice Elena Kagan was speaking at the Notre Dame Law School last week and had this to say about that.

ELENA KAGAN, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: What we could do is just adapt the code of conduct that the other court systems have in order to reflect those slight or certain differences.

And I think it would be a good thing for the court to do that.

It would help in our own compliance with the rules and it would, I think, go far in persuading other people that we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, Justice Kagan is making clear where she stands on this issue.

And, just today, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas for the first time recused himself from a case involving the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Why?

Do we know yet whether the court has adopted for itself a code of ethics?

MARCIA COYLE: No, I think, if they had, we would definitely know about it.

And there's really not been a word.

And I think there won't be until there is unanimous agreement on the court about what a code of ethics would entail for the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas' recusal was without comment.

We don't know why.

It involved John Eastman, who actually was a former clerk of his.

It could be because of that relationship.

It also could be because Justice Thomas' wife was very much involved in the -- trying to undo the results of the presidential election.

But I will note that two justices have started to explain why they recuse from cases.

And that's a huge step, I think, for the court.

Justice Kagan and Jackson today blamed -- Justice Kagan noted she recused from a case because of her prior governmental service.

She was formerly solicitor general of the United States.

Justice Jackson recused, stating it was because of her prior judicial service.

She was many years on the federal district court and then also on the court of appeals.

So I think that was a big step, but it's only two of nine.

So we will have to wait and see what they do.

Adopting an ethics code for the Supreme Court, Justice Kagan made it sound quite easy.

It took a long time for the lower federal courts to adopt their own code of ethics.

But, still, I think she's absolutely right about what impact it could have on the court's image and support within the American public if they got it done.

GEOFF BENNETT: Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle, it's always a pleasure to speak with you.

MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, too, Geoff.

Take care.