GEOFF BENNETT: This week, the U.S. Supreme Court kicked off a new term with a major case today focused on federal regulations of so-called ghost guns.

Those are firearms that are assembled at home with a kit.

They don't have traceable serial numbers, and they don't require background checks.

The justices weighed whether the government can regulate ghost guns with the same standard as other firearms made by licensed manufacturers.

Our U.S. Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle, was in the courtroom today, and she joins us right now.

It's great to see you, Marcia.

MARCIA COYLE: Good to see you, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, today the justices seem to focus on questions of government overreach.

Help us understand how this matter of government power factored into the arguments today.

MARCIA COYLE: Well, first of all, this case is very similar to last term's bump stock case.

If you recall, the Supreme Court basically threw out the ban on bump stocks because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claimed that bump stocks could be banned as machine guns.

Both cases are statutory interpretation cases.

They don't have anything to do with the Second Amendment or constitutional law.

But both cases are also part of an ongoing theme at the Supreme Court, almost a mission to reexamine federal agency power to see if agencies are overstepping.

There is this belief among conservatives in business that the administrative state has gotten too big, too powerful.

And in the arguments today, it factored in, in an interesting way.

Justice Kagan had a comment where she talked about the Gun Control Act at stake in this case that defines and regulates firearms.

She said, well, what if you have an old statute - - Gun Control Act was enacted in '86 -- or '68, '68 -- and a new problem, and Congress doesn't act, and the agency steps in?

Is the agency doing what Congress should be doing and taking power from Congress?

But Justice Jackson saw it another way.

She said, you have an old statute, a new problem, Congress doesn't act.

The Supreme Court steps in, and the Supreme Court is deciding what Congress delegated authority to the agency to do.

So there is this debate going on as to how far the court should go.

Is it taking power away from agencies for itself, or is it trying to reset the balance of power?

The government's argument today seemed to resonate most with a majority of the justices.

I think this case is different in one way as well from bump stocks.

GEOFF BENNETT: In what way?

MARCIA COYLE: They didn't like -- the court didn't like in the bump stock case that the bureau had never regulated bump stocks as machine guns until the massacre that occurred with bump stock guns at Las Vegas.

And the Trump administration at the time directed the bureau do something about bump stocks.

So it was a real change in -- abrupt change in policy, whereas the government today, the Biden administration, argued that the rule that it enacted or promulgated in 2022 was simply redefining -- not redefining, but expanding on the definition of firearms in the 1968 act, and that what they're doing with ghost guns really tracks what the bureau has been doing for almost 50 -- maybe 50 more years.

And that seemed to resonate with at least the majority of the justices.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's interesting.

So let's look ahead to the rest of the term.

There are some 40 cases and counting on the docket.

Are there overarching themes beyond the one you mentioned about the reexamining of the administrative state?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, certainly guns.

It seems like we're always going to have gun cases.

Besides the ghost gun argument today, a really interesting case has come to the court involving Mexico.

Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and some other gun makers, claiming that they have, through their distribution system, knowingly aided the trafficking of guns to drug cartels in Mexico.

Now, Congress had enacted a law that gives a broad shield to gun makers from liability for criminal acts done with the guns that they manufacture.

But there's one narrow little exception to that broad shield, and Mexico has tried to fit its lawsuit into that exception.

Smith & Wesson lost in the lower court, came to the Supreme Court, and that's what the issue is going to be.

Can Mexico go forward with its lawsuit against Smith & Wesson?

So guns, definitely.

The power case is that overarching theme, involves some really interesting cases this term.

Vaping.

There's -- the Food and Drug Administration would not approve marketing plans for e-cigarettes, flavored e-cigarettes, and the maker of those cigarettes has sued the Food and Drug Administration, claiming that it exceeded its authority in not approving the marketing.

And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been in a battle with the state of Texas over storage of nuclear waste away from reactors.

Texas says, oh, NRC, you exceeded your authority.

So those are very important cases, but all involve agency power.

There's also a First Amendment case that's fascinating.

The court has been dealing more and more with social media in different ways.

This case involves a Texas law that requires verification of age in order to access online porn.

The law was obviously enacted to protect minors.

So that one also is going to be fascinating.

And, finally, the culture war, the Tennessee ban, like 24 other states have, on medical treatment for transgender minors.

GEOFF BENNETT: And the court could also play a role in a potentially contested election.

MARCIA COYLE: Absolutely.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, we will be watching for that.

MARCIA COYLE: And I think they left room for it too, just in case.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's right.

Marcia Coyle, thanks so much.

Appreciate it.

MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, Geoff.