This one could be interesting. There are legitimate legal questions surrounding the "vaccine court", but the answers to those questions could have far-reaching consequences.

I actually will not be surprised if the current Supreme Court with its split of Constitutional literalists and interpreters of intent supports the "vaccine court". First, the Constitution gives Congress the right to form courts as they see fit (e.g., the actual legal issue with the military tribunals at Gitmo) with only the SC established by the Constitution. Second, the "vaccine court" would appear to be in the national interest. Third, the evidence supporting the appeal (plus I think the SC can consider the validity of general vaccine court claims) is weak, supporting the concern that frivolous suits will be filed. Essentially, while one has the right to file suit for alleged damages, the Congress has a right to establish the court in which you can file that suit.

Whether one likes the approach or not, the Supreme Court justices on both the left and right have all been consistent with their philosophical approach to law and I expect nothing different on this case.