In December, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments from the Biden administration’s lead attorney, who will beseech them to repeal laws in almost half of the states that prohibit hormone therapy for underage transgender individuals.

In January, the legal team of President-elect Donald Trump, appointed to the Justice Department, will be faced with the decision of whether the federal government still considers these laws unconstitutional.

Managing ongoing cases before the Supreme Court is always a significant question for a new presidential administration, with considerable consequences. This task is immense. For the current term of the Supreme Court, which commenced in October, the United States is a party to 21 out of the 45 cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. This includes the case about specific treatments for transgender youth. In numerous other cases, the Biden administration has given its analysis of the legal matters.

The Justice Department generally takes a predictable, nonpartisan approach in most of these cases, such as consistently defending federal criminal prosecutions on appeal. However, some cases involve decisions that reflect the policy preferences of the new administration.

These include controversial issues such as the Biden administration’s support for federal regulation of ghost guns, weapons that can be purchased in parts and assembled at home. The administration also opposed a lower court’s ban on a Texas law requiring individuals to verify their adulthood before accessing pornographic websites and defended the FDA’s refusal to authorize flavored e-cigarette products for sale.

It’s important to note that Trump’s lawyers could potentially reverse these positions. As Chief Justice John Roberts stated in 2022, a new administration generally has the right to do so.

The approach of the Trump administration to these cases remains uncertain. For instance, if the United States lost a case in the lower court, the new legal team can simply dismiss the appeal.

In a notable 2020 abortion case regarding Trump’s decision to prevent federally funded health clinics from making abortion referrals, the Biden administration adopted this strategy. When a lower court overruled the policy, Trump’s lawyers took it to the Supreme Court. However, after President Biden assumed office in early 2021, his legal team dropped the appeal, and the case was subsequently removed from the Supreme Court’s calendar.

The Trump administration will now have to decide whether to withdraw its appeal in the transgender case. Elizabeth Prelogar, the Solicitor General appointed by Biden, who presents the government’s case before the Supreme Court, has argued that state laws preventing minors from receiving hormones “discriminate based on transgender status”. Trump, who campaigned on eradicating “transgender insanity from our schools”, is unlikely to share this perspective.

However, if the Supreme Court appears to disagree with the Biden administration’s stance, Trump’s lawyers may choose to maintain their position. This seems probable as the ACLU is prepared to pursue the case if the government withdraws, rendering withdrawal by the new Trump administration potentially pointless.

The Trump administration’s stand on the ghost-guns case is also unclear. During the oral argument in October, the justices indicated that they had no issue with the Biden administration’s regulations on these homemade weapons, raising the hopes of advocates for gun control. If the Trump administration opposes the regulations on ghost guns, which treat these weapons the same as commercially sold firearms, it could dismiss the case, maintaining a lower court ruling that blocked the rule.

In contrast, if another party appeals a case that the U.S. won in the lower court, the approach of Trump’s lawyers may depend on different factors.

One such factor is the progress of the case. In January 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a criminal sentencing case. However, before the parties submitted briefs outlining their arguments, the Biden administration informed the Supreme Court that “following the change in administration, the Department of Justice began a process of reviewing the government’s interpretation of” the law and reversed course. The Supreme Court then appointed an external lawyer to argue the Trump administration’s previous position.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s caseload may change if Trump reverses Mr. Biden’s policies. In 2017, during his first term, Trump abandoned former President Barack Obama’s policy for bathroom use for transgender students just as a Republican challenge to the guidance arrived at the Supreme Court, ending the case.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s new lawyers will have to make strategic decisions.

Some might involve how to portray the government’s interests. The Supreme Court sometimes asks Justice Department lawyers to explain how a pending ruling might affect the government. Several of these kinds of requests are outstanding, including a Honolulu challenge that seeks to hold oil and gas companies accountable for the effects of emissions on the climate.

And some choices might not even result in any change to the Supreme Court’s current docket. One of the administration’s jobs is to ask the high court to review upcoming cases. Trump’s new lawyers may withdraw — or simply never pursue — certain appeals that the Biden administration teed up.

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to be a significant player in shaping the nation’s legal and political landscape.

Catherine Cole, a Supreme Court and legal producer at CBS News, is an attorney who has worked for multiple federal judges. She covers the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, election litigation, and other legal areas.