Welcome to SCOUTSblog’s newest recurring series, in which we interview experts on different supreme courts around the world and how they compare to our own. For our debut column, we figured it only made sense to go back to the mother country and its mother court. And to help us shed some light on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, we could think of no one better than Mark Elliott.

The Supreme Court on Monday night granted a request from a group of California parents to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court that prohibits schools in that state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation” and that requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there. In a seven-page order, the majority explained that the parents were likely to prevail on their claim that California’s policies violate the parents’ right to freely exercise their religion and their right to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

The Supreme Court on Monday was skeptical that the indictment of a Texas man on charges that he violated a federal law prohibiting the possession of a gun by the users of illegal drugs could go forward. Ali Danial Hemani argued that the law violates the Second Amendment – which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” – as it applies to him, and a majority of the justices appeared to agree.

On Monday, March 2, we were live as the court heard argument in United States v. Hemani, on whether a federal statute that prohibits gun possession by users of illegal drugs violates the Second Amendment.

In Hunter v. United States, to be argued on Tuesday, March 3, the Supreme Court will address how broad federal defendants’ waivers of their right to appeal can be and the effect of a district court’s statement at sentencing that the defendant may appeal when he previously agreed to an appellate waiver.