The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Prometheus Radio Project and BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

In Prometheus Radio Project, which was consolidated with National Association of Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project, the court has to consider whether it was permissible for the FCC to repeal its rules that control “cross-ownership” in 2017. Cross-ownership refers to the FCC’s bar on having the same entity own a daily newspaper and a radio or television station in the same market. Furthermore, it bars the ownership of both radio and television stations in the same market.

The FCC also altered some of its rules, including limiting the number of television stations that a single organization may own within a single local market. This modification was justified as a method of aiding the declining newspaper industry. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard the case and vacated the changes to the rules as arbitrary and capricious on the grounds that the FCC had not properly considered how these new rules would impact media ownership by women and minorities.

As such, the primary discussion during oral arguments was to what extent the FCC did consider the impact of its rule modification on women and minorities. While it would not be immediate, it is possible that the FCC’s stance on these rules may change somewhat under the Biden administration.

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore raises a question regarding court powers. The Supreme Court has to consider whether courts of appeals are permitted to review any issue that was incorporated within a district court’s order of remand to a state court, or whether it is only permitted to review the grounds for removal.

The court is tasked with considering the permissibility of such considerations under 28 USC § 1447. The case stemmed from a suit by the mayor and city of Baltimore against various oil and gas companies that the plaintiffs alleged were a considerable source of climate change. Two of the defendants in this case attempted to remove the case to federal court, but the district court denied the motion, sending the case back to state court. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court’s holding.

States, organizations and individuals have been bringing suits against actors they believe are contributing irresponsibly to climate change in recent decades, and there are many cases currently pending in the US. The decision in this case has the capacity to influence how courts handle those cases that are currently pending.