Hurricane Milton, a monstrous storm set to hit western Florida Wednesday night, is poised to deplete the finances of the government’s chronically indebted flood insurance program. Congress is already bracing for a fight over what to do about it.

Key lawmakers and aides are beginning to game out the likely impact on the National Flood Insurance Program, which is the primary option for millions of American homeowners to protect their finances from catastrophic flooding.

The emerging view from several lawmakers and staffers is that NFIP claims spurred by Milton and last month’s Hurricane Helene will likely exhaust the program’s nearly $5 billion in funds and force it to tap $9.9 billion in Treasury borrowing authority. While the NFIP collects premiums and pays out claims similar to a typical insurer, it’s been upside down financially because of weaknesses in how it assessed flood risks for decades and giant losses brought by devastating storms including Hurricane Katrina.

Some on Capitol Hill expect Milton could push the NFIP to the edge of what it can borrow from Treasury, potentially forcing Congress to raise its borrowing cap or to pursue some kind of alternative funding to ensure that claims are paid.

Nearly 2 million NFIP policies are in areas hit by last month’s Helene or threatened by Milton, which has shifted between a Category 4 and 5 storm this week. Milton is expected to cause much bigger losses than Helene, which hit hardest in areas with relatively low levels of flood insurance coverage. Florida has more than 1.7 million NFIP policies.

“The fundamental question here is, will $15 billion be enough to cover Helene and a Category 5 that hits Tampa?” said one House Financial Services Committee GOP staffer granted anonymity because the person wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. “No, $15 billion probably would not ultimately be enough money.”

The looming disaster is set to rekindle long-running political conflicts about how to shore up the program. Congress has struggled for years with how to revamp the NFIP, amid clashes over whether changes would drive up the cost of coverage and housing. The prospects for an emergency intervention to ensure claims are paid if such a move is necessary post-Milton are likewise looking fraught as opposing ideas emerge over how to bridge the gap. Among them: Whether to simply raise the NFIP’s borrowing authority, appropriate money to pay policyholders or cancel more of the NFIP’s debt, as Congress did with $16 billion in debt forgiveness to pay claims after 2017’s string of hurricanes.

“It’s been nearly impossible to try to get any type of consensus on this,” said Rep. Garret Graves, a Louisiana Republican. “The way that we prepare for disasters and the way we recover from them just needs to be fundamentally changed because at the end of the day, disaster victims are re-victimized by the stupidity and inefficiency of our federal government.”

Graves said in an interview that he raised the issue with House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Monday. House Financial Services and Senate Banking have jurisdiction over the NFIP and its borrowing authority.

“My takeaway was that [McHenry’s] frustrated by all the landmines out there in the flood insurance space,” Graves said.

According to House aides granted anonymity, McHenry and the lead Democratic member of his committee, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, have clashing views on how to free up cash for claims if such a move is warranted, despite coming together in the past on long-term reform plans. McHenry would favor raising the NFIP’s borrowing cap or appropriating funds, while Waters has long advocated for debt forgiveness. Congress has imposed a $30.4 billion limit on the NFIP’s ability to borrow from Treasury.

McHenry and Waters spokespeople declined to comment.

Lisa Peto, who worked on NFIP issues as a former Financial Services Committee chief counsel to Waters, said she expects the borrowing authority to be raised as it has in the past but that it’s less clear whether there is political will to forgive the debt.

“There may be some backlash from lawmakers representing less ‘risky’ areas that have raised concerns in the past about cross-subsidization,” said Peto, who is now a partner at the government affairs firm Mindset.

Lawmakers are beginning to stress that Congress will ensure NFIP policyholders receive the funds they’re owed. FEMA, which operates the NFIP, is facing mounting pressure across its operations thanks to Helene and now Milton.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that there is not a delay in the ability of FEMA to respond to their needs,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who sits on Senate Banking. “It should always be a concern that you’re going deeper in debt with a program that has to be reformed, but it is not inconsistent with the way the program has been run in the past.”

The NFIP did not respond to a request for comment.

Congress, which won’t return to Washington until after the November elections, likely has ample runway to address any kind of NFIP claims crunch that arises.

“It is definitely a possibility that you could have, with combined Helene plus Milton, claims that would be more than the NFIP borrowing authority,” said former NFIP chief actuary Andy Neal, who is now a managing director at Aon. “The good news is, with a $9.9 billion cushion provided by the borrowing authority, there would be time for action to be taken.”

TOLEDO, Ohio — Republicans excitedly declared in July that Donald Trump’s decision to pick Sen. JD Vance as his running mate would help them win battleground congressional districts in Ohio.

Three months later, that doesn’t seem to be playing out in one of the state’s toughest elections — where the GOP is looking for any boost it can get as it tries to oust the longest-serving woman in the House.

Republicans had seen Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s seat as one of their top pickup opportunities. And several factors went their way this cycle: The party drew a redder district in recent redistricting and they avoided the perils of a candidate with significant personal issues — a critical problem in 2022 that led to Kaptur winning by 13 points.

The GOP hoped Vance could give the party the final leg up it needed. At the Republican convention, two days after Trump selected his running mate, House GOP campaign arm Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) said Vance “sets Ohio on fire” and would provide a “real lift” in key House races.

But a recent poll had Kaptur with a 10-point lead over Republican Derek Merrin, and the Ohio senator turned vice presidential candidate has barely factored into the matchup.

Vance is conspicuously absent from local billboards that prominently feature Trump, Merrin and GOP Senate candidate Bernie Moreno. He’s not been a part of Republican advertising on broadcast, either, according to a POLITICO review of AdImpact data, despite a plethora of outside spending. And in more than a dozen interviews in the Rust Belt district the day after Vance’s effective debate performance, local voters, politicians and union representatives were either apathetic or outright negative about him.

“I don’t think [Trump and Vance] have very good character. The things they say, like just last night on the debate. … A lot of the things [Vance] was saying, just like Trump, were outrageous and inflammatory,” said Stephanie Garcia, a 55-year-old insurance worker who paused to talk on the streets of downtown Toledo and indicated she supports Kaptur. “Business wise, it might be best for the country, but character is a big deal for me.”

“I literally have members who told me: ‘I’m voting for Trump, but I’m splitting the ticket. I’m going to vote for Marcy, and I’m going to vote for Sen. [Sherrod] Brown.’ Because they see them in action,” said UAW Local 14 President Tony Totty.

Even for voters who support Merrin and Trump, Vance hadn’t factored into their decision. He was largely unknown to some before the debate.

“I didn’t really know anything about [Vance], even though we’re both from Ohio, but I thought he really did good [in the debate],” said Darlene Fisher, standing outside of a Kroger grocery store. She was supporting Merrin because “Marcy’s been in there too long. I know her personally. She needs to retire.”

While GOP leaders had crowed about Vance after Trump picked him in July, rank-and-file Republicans more quietly expressed fears that he didn’t bring much to the ticket as a senator from a solid-red state with a political worldview similar to Trump’s. And if Republicans aren’t using Vance as an asset here in Toledo, it begs the question: Where does he help the party this cycle?

Kaptur has embraced a now-viral clip that concerns Vance from last year’s UAW strike — when she quipped at him at the picket line: “First time here?” Besides that, Kaptur is steering clear of the vice presidential candidate and trying to keep the highly partisan national atmosphere out of her campaign.

Recalling that moment in an interview after finishing an event at the Lucas County Commission offices, Kaptur grew animated: “What does he know about the auto industry and the trucking industry?”

Kaptur has defied political gravity in a district that favored Trump by 3 points in 2020 by keeping close ties at the local level. She’s represented the area for over forty years, and signs of her influence are everywhere. She spoke with POLITICO next to a display in a local county office dedicated to “Lucas County’s Wall of Friends” — where Kaptur was prominently featured.

Just a day after the vice presidential debate and Vance’s strong performance, Kaptur shrugged off any effect he’d have down-ballot: “I think he has high ambitions, and so he’s been successful in getting elected in Ohio, but he hasn’t had time, really to have any results.” Vance was first elected to the Senate two years ago and built a career largely outside of politics before that.

Another point working against Republicans: Democrats’ switch at the top of the presidential ticket over the summer negated a lot of their extreme top-of-the-ticket liability. A late-July survey after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race showed Trump and Harris basically tied in the district, while Biden had a favorable rating of just 36 percent and a 60 percent unfavorable rating. Vance, who narrowly lost the district in his 2022 Senate race, had a 48 percent unfavorable rating.

Still, Republicans project confidence about the district moving in their direction. Ticket splitting between presidential and House candidates is always a tough swing, and at least some of Kaptur’s 2022 victory is attributable to flawed GOP candidate J.R. Majewski.

“After 41 years in Congress with almost nothing to show for it, Marcy Kaptur has left Ohioans behind and Derek Merrin is strategically positioned to capitalize on the Trump/Vance momentum — flipping this seat red and ending Kaptur’s tenure of inaction,” said Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for House Republicans’ campaign arm.

Merrin declined an interview request for this story. He instead sent a statement, saying he was running “to bring the fresh leadership Northwest Ohio needs to fight for those in our community who are truly hurting due to the skyrocketing inflation of the Biden/Kaptur economy. I’m proud to support the Trump/Vance ticket because their economic policies are going to put the American people first and bring back the American dream.”

A Vance spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

And it’s not just in this district that Vance is a non-issue. He hasn’t popped up as a surrogate for Moreno in the Senate race, nor is he a presence in the state’s other competitive congressional race in Northeast Ohio, where first-term Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes is seeking a second term.

Some Republicans defended the party’s lack of focus on Vance, saying that with Ohio sliding toward Trump, the senator’s time would be better served in more competitive swing states.

“He’s got a lot on his plate,” said Republican state Rep. Josh Williams, who represents a Toledo-area district. “He’s been here advocating for change here in Ohio. I believe that there’s enough momentum here in Ohio for a true shift in politics here.”

Much of Merrin’s argument against Kaptur has centered around the common battleground theme of immigration, and Republicans have also used the career-politician criticism against her in ads. “Marcy Kaptur has been in Congress for 40 years, 40 years of voting for open borders,” declared a recent National Republican Congressional Committee spot.

Kaptur, like many purple-district Democrats this cycle, pointed to the bipartisan border bill torpedoed by Republicans this Congress as part of the work she and other lawmakers had done to address a surge in migration at the southern border. And she embraces her lengthy tenure in Congress head-on.

“I think one of the problems the country is having right now is people don’t stay in elected office long enough,” she said, pointing to long-term problems facing the region like water quality in the Great Lakes or rail infrastructure. “We have to have people who are experienced, and I just think that people have to dedicate their lives to the Republic, to their communities. … We can’t have green people being elected at every level who come with no experience in governance.”

Her longevity has given her a boost in name recognition, though that could also cut against her. The seniority issue elicited strong opinions from voters. Robert Voltz, a 42-year-old Jeep worker out walking his dog who said he was undecided on the House race, said: “I know who Marcy is. I don’t know who her opponent is.” And Susan Hinkel offered an expletive for Kaptur as she left Kroger, adding: “Time for her to go home.”

The 78-year-old Kaptur isn’t giving any hints about her future retirement plans if she wins reelection.

“I don’t know that answer, but the seniority I hold belongs to the people I represent,” she said. “They stuck with me through thick and thin, and I hope they’ll say the same about me someday, that I stuck with them through thick and thin.”

The leader of an effort among conservative senators to shape the race to elect the next Senate GOP leader — and push the chamber further right — is finally putting his ideas down on paper.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Monday night laid out a series of proposals meant to decentralize power inside the Senate Republican Conference, taking it away from the office that outgoing Leader Mitch McConnell has occupied for nearly two decades.

In a letter sent to Senate Republican offices Monday night and obtained by Playbook, Lee doesn’t explicitly refer to his proposals as demands. But in the context of a hotly contested race to succeed McConnell between Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the list will clearly be seen as a roadmap for winning the support of the roughly dozen conservative senators whom Lee is believed to be speaking for.

“We have the chance to strengthen the Senate, empower individual members, and ensure that the voices of the American people are heard once more,” Lee wrote.

The proposals largely have to do with Senate and GOP Conference procedures, not with particular policies. In that respect, they are similar to the demands that the hard-right House Freedom Caucus made last year ahead of Kevin McCarthy’s election as House speaker.

McCarthy indulged those demands to win election, including giving conservatives de facto control of the floor through prized spots on the House Rules Committee, and he immediately found it difficult to govern effectively. A small cadre of hard-liners forced him out nine months later.

The Senate has traditionally been more collegial, and more respectful of individual lawmakers’ rights. But frustration has grown over the past two decades as more and more power has been centralized in the party leadership suites, and conservatives have blamed that centralization for bipartisan deals that they despise. Lee has taken to calling it “uniparty” rule.

While Scott is seen as the most solicitous of conservatives in the race to succeed McConnell, his broader support is seen as limited. The more likely scenario is that the conservative bloc becomes a possible kingmaker in a second-ballot race involving Cornyn and Thune, who are seen as more natural heirs to McConnell’s leadership style.

Lee’s proposals can be seen as an initial bid to exert leverage in such a scenario. His ideas include:

Requiring three-fourths of the Conference to agree before the leader can “fill the tree,” an increasingly frequent procedural maneuver by which a majority leader can effectively shut down potential amendments. “This would give individual members more say and restore the Senate as a place of genuine debate and negotiation,” said Lee, who has long pushed for a more open amendment process — along with many other senators of both parties.

Require four weeks of debate and amendment for omnibus appropriations bills, the catchall packages that leaders tend to hash out behind closed doors then push through the House and Senate with minimal time for review or debate. “We know when the funding deadlines are; we set them,” wrote Lee. “We should have no problem setting a schedule for consideration four weeks in advance of that deadline.”

Create a “floor schedule” at the outset of the legislative year for appropriations and stick to it — so that the chambers can fully debate and amend spending bills rather than consider them in a rush during the holidays, as has become customary.

Confine the GOP whip to muscling votes only for positions that have majority support from the Republican Conference. Such a rule, Lee said, “would protect Republican leadership from ever being in the position of having to whip for legislation advancing Democrat priorities, as happens from time-to-time when must pass legislation is up against a critical deadline.”

Lastly, propose “policy goals” and “specific strategies” to achieve them that Republicans should aim for during high-stakes negotiations — a nod to conservatives’ belief that they too often get rolled on priorities such as the debt ceiling and spending caps. Laying those out in advance, he wrote, “would give us a shared vision to rally around.”

Like this content? Sign up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — A former Republican candidate for Congress in Florida has been charged with threatening to send a hit squad to kill an opponent in the race, federal authorities said Friday.

William Braddock claimed in a recorded call with a local activist that he would send a Russian and Ukrainian hit squad to kill Anna Paulina Luna during the 2022 primary for a seat in the Clearwater area, the Department of Justice said. Luna went on to win the seat in the general election.

Braddock, 41, was extradited from the Philippines, where he moved after the primary, on a charge of interstate transmission of a true threat to injure another person. He made an initial appearance Thursday in federal court in Los Angeles.

The charges stem from the contentious Republican primary that was heating up after then Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) announced he was not going to run for reelection for his Pinellas County congressional seat.

POLITICO previously reported that a conservative activist recorded Braddock telling her to not support Luna — who had lost to Crist to 2020 — because he had access to assassins.

“I really don’t want to have to end anybody’s life for the good of the people of the United States of America,” he said, according to the recording obtained at the time by POLITICO. “That will break my heart. But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Luna is a fucking speed bump in the road. She’s a dead squirrel you run over every day when you leave the neighborhood.”

At the time, Braddock denied to POLITICO via text to discuss the call and said he had not heard the recording. He also suggested the recording “may even be altered and edited.”

A judge later approved a temporary restraining order against him but did not grant a permanent injunction and local authorities declined to pursue charges. Pinellas-Pasco Executive Assistant State Attorney Kendall Davidson told the Tampa Bay Times back in 2021 that probable cause didn’t exist to file charges in the case because Braddock didn’t make the threat directly to Luna or her family and doesn’t have the reasonable ability to carry out the threat.

The Justice Department said that the FBI investigated the case along with the St. Petersburg Police Department as part of the department’s election threats task force. Florida Politics reported a year ago that Braddock had been arrested by authorities in Philippines in conjunction with the FBI. He faces up to five years in prison.

Luna, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, would go on to win the GOP primary in 2022 and win the congressional seat outright. She is running for reelection in the district, which includes a part of the state that experienced the effects of Hurricane Helene. Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) defended GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump saying the Russia-Ukraine war must end through negotiation in an interview Sunday rather than counting on a Ukrainian victory.

“I’m not on Russia’s side — but unfortunately the reality of it is that the way the war in Ukraine is going to end is with a negotiated settlement,” Rubio said in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I want, and we want, and, I believe Donald Trump wants, for Ukraine to have more leverage in that negotiation.”

Rubio, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he didn’t know “why we can’t just say that” in regards to Trump’s proposed negotiated deal.

On Wednesday, Trump gave one of his strongest signals so far that he will not fully back Ukraine’s aims, saying Ukraine should have “given up a little bit” at a campaign event in North Carolina. On Friday, after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump supported a negotiated deal, saying, “It takes two to tango, and we will.” And when asked directly, the former president denied two opportunities to say he wanted Ukraine to win during the last presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s supporters have insisted that all of Ukraine’s occupied territory must be restored. But Rubio added that the Biden administration, if pressed on what victory looks like for Ukraine, would also agree that a negotiation is the end result.

“We hope that when that time comes there is more leverage on the Ukrainian side than on the Russian side. That really is the goal here in my mind,” Rubio said. “And I think that’s what Donald Trump is trying to say, but he’s going to say it like a businessman. But Biden won’t even tell us what victory is.”

The Florida senator also danced around supporting Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance for saying that a peaceful settlement could look like “the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine, that becomes like a demilitarized zone” on a podcast recently.

“I think what the deal looks like will be up to the parties when they negotiate it. Obviously, Zelenskyy is not going to come out there and say, from a negotiating standpoint is not going to go out there and predetermine what it looks like,” Rubio said. “So I understand why he wouldn’t want to go out there and define what it looks like at the front end.”

He added, “But I think we, as Americans, the reality of it is we are investing billions of dollars into this effort, and it’s important that as we invest this money into this effort that we tell the American taxpayer, ‘This is what the money’s going toward.’ Ultimately, it’s not endless war, right?”

When pressed on whether he would be comfortable with accepting the demarcation agreement Vance proposed, Rubio dodged, saying he would be comfortable with a negotiated deal that ends hostilities and favors Ukraine, “meaning that they have their own sovereignty.” He reiterated that he would not “prejudge any agreement” when asked if that means he did not support Vance’s claims.

“The most important thing here is that these hostilities end and that Ukraine can go back to rebuilding its economy and people can move back. Millions of people have had to leave that country,” Rubio said. “It’s been devastating to them. But that negotiation is going to be up to them. I just want them to have more leverage than Putin.”

Speaker Mike Johnson is blasting Democrats for being “hypocritical” when it comes to standing with Israel after Iran’s ballistic missile attacks on Tuesday.

The GOP leader kicked off a planned Tuesday speech before the New York Stock Exchange by calling on the Biden administration to send a clear message to Iran that their attacks against Israel won’t be tolerated. He urged the Biden administration “to fully enforce the Iran sanctions on the books and reimpose the U.N. sanctions lest they expire.”

There are widespread concerns that the escalating battle between Israel and Iran could turn into an even broader international conflict.

“We also recognize that it’s hypocritical for the administration to express support for Israel’s defense while continuing to appease the Iranian regime with billions or hundreds of billions of dollars, actually, in sanctions relief,” Johnson said at the speech, while calling for a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran and Iranian-backed groups.

“President Biden needs to make clear that there will be decisive economic and potential military ramifications for these actions,” he added.

Less than an hour before the speech, Johnson put out a statement that even more directly blamed President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for actions that led to the Tuesday attacks: “Our adversaries are carrying out increasingly dangerous attacks because of Biden and Harris’ weak and failed foreign policy.”

The speaker was originally slated to speak in New York on Republicans’ economic agenda if they hold control of both chambers of Congress and the White House in 2025. And the Iran attack wasn’t the only news that took him off topic — he also addressed disaster relief after Hurricane Helene devastated the Southeast over the weekend.

Multiple lawmakers have called on Congress to return from its preelection break to pass more disaster relief cash, but Johnson appeared to shut the door on those demands Tuesday. He said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has the immediate money that it needs to address the multi-state devastation.

“We’ll be working with our members, with FEMA, with state and local emergency management, to help address the many needs that are out there, and this is going to go on for some time. … Congress has previously provided FEMA with the funds it needs to respond, so we will make sure that those resources are appropriately allocated,” he said.

The short-term funding bill that Congress passed last month extends FEMA’s current funding level of $20 billion, which congressional leaders believe is enough to handle immediate needs. And while President Joe Biden suggested this week that he might request that Congress come back into session to handle the fallout from Hurricane Helene, administration officials told reporters earlier Tuesday that FEMA was in a “good position” to address the hurricane’s destruction.

Johnson did broadly sketch out 2025 priorities for Republicans, hitting similar talking points that he’s focused on before. Those include rolling back Biden-era regulations, extending Trump-era tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire, cutting spending and vowing to “root out a long list of nonessential jobs throughout the federal bureaucracy.”

Republicans have been quietly planning for months how they would potentially use slim congressional majorities, particularly if Donald Trump wins the White House. A process known as budget reconciliation would allow them to pass some partisan measures without Senate Democratic help, assuming they control both chambers, but that path still comes with strict limits.

“It’s our intention, with a new Senate Republican majority and a Republican president, Republican House, to pursue a policy of fiscal responsibility,” he said.

Capitol police chief: New intel bureau is key as Congress threats rise

lead image

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the government of Mexico can sue the leading gun manufacturers in the U.S. for allegedly fueling drug cartel violence south of the border.

The justices announced Friday that they will hear the gunmakers’ challenge to an appeals court ruling that would allow the unusual, $10 billion lawsuit to proceed in federal court in Boston.

A district court judge threw the case out two years ago, citing a 2005 law Congress passed to block an increasing number of suits seeking to hold gun manufacturers liable for violence and deaths involving firearms.

However, the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in January said the suit could proceed because the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was aimed solely at limiting suits over the domestic market in weapons and because Mexico had alleged that the companies’ conduct amounted to “aiding and abetting” gun smuggling.

Mexico contends in its suit that over a half million firearms a year made in the U.S. wind up in Mexico, often reaching drug trafficking cartels. The illicit flow of weapons undercuts Mexico’s strict gun laws, the suit claims.

The suit, which targets major U.S. gunmakers including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Colt and Beretta, claims that the companies’ distribution, sales and marketing practices encourage sales to so-called “straw” buyers, who often bring the guns to Mexico or furnish them to others who do.

The gunmakers asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing that it amounts to a backdoor effort to impose gun regulations Congress hasn’t passed or has allowed to expire, such as the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004.

“Mexico makes no secret that it abhors this country’s approach to firearms, and that it wants to use the American court system to impose domestic gun controls on the United States that the American people themselves would never accept through the ordinary political process,” the companies’ attorneys wrote.

The firearms manufacturers also say the suit is flawed because those who traffic the weapons into Mexico are committing “multiple independent criminal acts” that don’t involve the companies.

The gun-related case was included Friday on a broader list of cases the Supreme Court announced it would take up in its upcoming term, which begins Monday. Other cases the justices agreed to hear include a dispute about permits to store nuclear waste in west Texas, a criminal false statements case involving former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley’s nephew, and a legal fight related to the Food and Drug Administration’s power to regulate vaping.

The newly added cases are likely to be scheduled for argument early next year.

In separate orders Friday, the Supreme Court turned down an effort by power companies to block a Biden administration rule to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic metals from power plants, and the court rejected a bid from Republican-led states to halt a rule to reduce methane emissions during energy production. No justice noted any dissent from either order.