Embedded Files
Next Meeting: 02/09/26, 7 PM, Ozark-Dale Library
Focus On The Supreme Court, The Pursuit of Equality and A Fair Justice System:
Supreme Court could dramatically alter US election landscape
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5682382-voting-rights-act-supreme-court/amp/
Comment: "The Supreme Court could reshape U.S. elections for years to come as it hears a number of cases with implications for the country’s political landscape."
"In perhaps the most high-stakes example, the country is waiting to see whether the justices weaken a section of the Voting Rights Act."
"Other rulings expected this year could alter how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates, or affect the deadline for casting ballots on time."
"Here are some of the key cases to watch:"
Comment: "Louisiana v. Callais"
Comment: "NRSC v. FEC"
Comment: "Watson v. RNC"
Comment: "Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections"
Comment: Please read the linked article to learn the significance of each of these cases.
Chief Justice John Roberts dodges contentious issues in year-end message to judiciary
Comment: "Chief Justice John Roberts scrupulously avoided touching on contentious issues facing judges at a time of widespread discord within the federal judiciary in his annual end-of-year report Wednesday."
"Roberts' seven-page statement focused mostly on the history of the Declaration of Independence even as judges have faced harsh criticism this year for ruling against Trump administration policies amid a period of rising violent threats."
"Addressing his colleagues in the judiciary, Roberts said it is the duty of everyone in government to live up to the ideals of the 1776 declaration that paved the way to American independence and expressed confidence in the sturdiness of the Constitution."
Chief Justice says Constitution remains ‘firm and unshaken’ with major Supreme Court rulings ahead
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-judges-caad1b61e25a15315b667de3fbe1fabe
CNN: Chief Justice John Roberts pushes for judicial independence in history-heavy report
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/31/politics/john-roberts-year-end-report
Samuel Alito keeps getting his way. So why does he seem so unhappy? | CNN Politics
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/29/politics/samuel-alito-winning-but-unhappy
Video: The top Trump administration legal battles of 2025 - December 26, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3eJQTdUsy8
Comment: "This video summary cover many topics, but it is by no means comprehensive. Because it is a summary, it is unable to address the issues in any detail. However, the summary serves as a reminder of some major Trump related legal battles events. Once the viewer is reminded of the 2025 battles, he/she can use the articles and videos presented in our news article section (presented in reverse chronological order) to explore the facts and issues associated with those battles in greater detail. These articles/videos are provided under many of the news subpage topics, for example "The 2nd Trump Administration," "More Outrages From GOP." "Resistance to Trump Agenda," the "US Congress, etc."
Video: Supreme Court keeps National Guard deployment blocked in Chicago area - December 23, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZN5esnxmVQ
Judge Cannon clears way for release of classified docs report — but gives Trump an out
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/22/classified-documents-case-aileen-cannon-00704266
Comment: "A federal judge took a step Monday toward the public release of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on President Donald Trump’s handling of classified material he stashed at Mar-a-Lago in 2021."
"U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon blocked for nearly a year the release of Smith’s classified documents report but agreed Monday to lift her order on Feb. 24."
"However, Cannon also invited a possible legal challenge by Trump or his former alleged co-conspirators, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, that could further delay the report’s release. The Trump-appointed judge emphasized that her timeline for release of the report could give way to legal claims that Smith’s report shouldn’t be released at all."
"Cannon tossed the case against Trump after she ruled Smith was unconstitutionally appointed as special counsel. The Justice Department appealed her ruling, but that challenge was pending when Trump recaptured the presidency. Prosecutors ultimately dropped the appeal and the cases against Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira."
"Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, Cannon rebuffed efforts by the Justice Department to release Smith’s final classified documents report. Trump argued earlier this month that Cannon’s conclusion that Smith was illegally appointed should result in the permanent sealing of Smith’s findings."
Comment: We all saw pictures of unsecured classified documents (including SCI-Special Compartmentalized Information documents) that Donald Trump illegally held at Mar-a-Lago. Given the pro-Trump bias exhibited by Judge Aileen Cannon and the DOJ policy of not prosecuting a sitting President, Donald Trump will never be held criminally/legally accountable for his illegal actions. Now, it looks like Cannon, by suppressing public release of Jack Smith's final report on Trump's handling of the classified material, may insure that Trump will not be judged in the court of public opinion either. This will allow Trump and his Republican minions to rewrite history as they have recently attempted to do regarding the January 6th riot at the U.S. capitol. (By the way, this false January 6th historical narrative was posted on a government website and paid for by your tax dollars.)
Trump’s win streak on Supreme Court emergency docket breaks
Judge orders special elections for Mississippi Supreme Court after Voting Rights Act violation
Comment: "A judge on Friday ordered special elections for the Mississippi Supreme Court after earlier finding that the electoral map used to select justices violated the Voting Rights Act "
85% of people given federal pardons or clemency this year are white, House lawmaker’s report says
Comment: "Eighty-five percent of the people granted pardons or clemency this year by President Donald Trump are white, and Jan. 6 defendants made up 90% of those who benefited, according to a new report compiled by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., a vocal advocate for criminal justice reform."
"Five percent are Latino and another 8% are Black, according to the report, which was first shared with NBC News."
"Comparing these statistics against the makeup of the general federal prison population, Pressley’s report notes that a quarter of that population is white, 36% Hispanic and 34% Black."
Ex-employees of US Justice Department blast 'destruction' of civil rights unit
Comment: "More than 200 former employees of the U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday criticized what they called the ongoing 'destruction' of its Civil Rights Division, saying President Donald Trump's administration has abandoned the agency's mission of protecting vulnerable Americans."
"In an open letter on the 68th anniversary of the division's creation, they alleged that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon have killed important cases intended to protect people from sexual harassment and assault, police brutality and voting inequities. They also accused leadership of changing how civil rights investigations are conducted by demanding they 'find facts to fit the Administration's pre-determined outcomes'."
Is JD Vance already running for president? The Supreme Court wants to know.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/09/jd-vance-campaign-finance-supreme-court-00683246
Comment: "JD Vance’s 2028 ambitions were a hot topic among the justices Tuesday as the Supreme Court heard a case looking to upend campaign finance restrictions originally brought by the now-vice president when he was a Senate candidate."
" 'There’s no evidence that the vice president has abandoned his intention to run for federal office in 2028,' said Noel Francisco, the former solicitor general representing Republican House and Senate committees and Vance in NRSC v. FEC."
"At issue was whether Vance’s current public ambiguity about his presidential ambitions three years from now rendered his original case — which sought to allow more coordination between political parties and candidates — moot. 'Virtually every vice president goes on to run for the presidency, particularly young ones like Vice President Vance,' Francisco insisted. 'This court doesn’t have to blind itself to the reality that’s obvious to everybody else.' "
"However, Roman Martinez, a prominent Supreme Court litigator tapped by the justices to defend the current law after the Trump administration declined to do so, argued that Vance must have 'a concrete plan' to run to persist in the legal case seeking to lift the coordinated spending limits."
"Martinez pointed to comments Vance made to NBC News just last week. 'It’s something that could happen. It’s something that might not happen,' Vance said of a 2028 presidential bid."
"Martinez said those comments are simply too mushy for Vance to have legal standing to continue with the case."
" 'If any other plaintiff in this court told you that his injury is speculative, that it’s uncertain, that it’s premature, that it might happen and it might not happen, they wouldn’t have a prayer under Article Three' of the Constitution, Martinez said. 'The same rules apply to the vice president. There’s no politician exception to Article Three.' "
Comment: The legal question is whether Vance and the NRSC have legal standing to bring the case to court.
Comment: "The chatter around Vance’s 2028 hopes comes as the conservative justices seem poised to further weaken campaign finance rules, particularly around coordination between parties and candidates, which could upend how tens of millions of dollars are spent during elections."
"Such a ruling from the high court would hand Republicans their biggest campaign finance victory since the landmark 2010 Citizens United case and the 2014 McCutcheon decision that wiped out aggregate individual contribution limits. And it stands to completely reshape TV advertising — predominantly for congressional races — in the middle of a bruising midterm cycle for both parties."
Trump’s lawyer pushed for more executive power; Supreme Court justices seem eager to comply | CNN Politics
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/09/politics/executive-power-supreme-court-humphreys-executor-analysis
Supreme Court seems likely to let Trump fire independent agency heads
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/08/supreme-court-slaughter-trump-firings-00681078
Supreme Court appears poised to vastly expand presidential powers
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/08/nx-s1-5626876/supreme-court-trump-ftc-unitary-executive
Supreme Court could topple yet another campaign finance limit
Comment: "The Supreme Court could eliminate one of the remaining checks on money in politics in a case that worries advocates fighting the influence of deep-pocketed donors."
"In a challenge involving Vice President JD Vance, the court will consider on Dec. 9 the Republican Party’s argument for overturning a 2001 decision that upheld a rule aimed at preventing wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give candidates by funneling money through political parties."
Comment: "Former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who authored other campaign finance rules that have been partially overturned by the Supreme Court, wrote in a brief for the case that getting rid of the coordinated spending limits would be 'the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.' "
"But the court could also avoid the issue by dismissing the case after hearing it."
"After President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department stopped defending the federal rule."
"The lawyer the court then appointed to argue in support of the rule said the justices don’t have to weigh in now because there’s no threat that the federal government will enforce the coordination restriction."
Comment: So, since the Trump administration doesn't plan on enforcing the law anyway, in the short run it doesn't practically matter which way the court rules, or if it rules at all.
Comment: Failure to enforce laws it doesn't like. Allowing illegal campaign funding of GOP candidates. Does the level of Trump administration corruption know any boundaries?
Supreme Court to hear major test of presidential power over Trump's firing of FTC commissioner
Comment: "President Trump's efforts to reshape the executive branch and flex his presidential power are set to be tested at the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices convene to hear a case that could lead to the dismantling of protections meant to insulate independent agencies from political pressure."
"The case, known as Trump v. Slaughter, arose from Mr. Trump's move to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her post at the Federal Trade Commission without cause, despite a federal statute that limits a commissioner's removal to instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Trump’s plans to shatter the bureaucracy have a green light at the Supreme Court
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/07/supreme-court-trump-firings-humphreys-executor-00679728
Comment: "The Supreme Court will debate Monday whether to finally finish off a teetering, 90-year-old precedent that limited presidents’ power over many federal agencies."
"But lurking in the wings is a far more radical bid by the Trump administration to remake the federal government from top to bottom by ending the concept of the civil service."
"Indeed, some legal experts say that as a practical matter, the administration — emboldened by the justices — has already managed to eliminate job protections that have been on the books for nearly 150 years."
"President Donald Trump’s drive to replace agency leaders and his mass firings across the federal government are all based on the same basic legal concept: the unitary executive theory. It holds that every employee of the executive branch is answerable to, and fireable at will by, the president."
"The most extreme version of the unitary executive theory holds that the central premise of the civil service — that rank-and-file government employees shouldn’t be hired or fired for political reasons or simply on the president’s whim — is unconstitutional because it tramples on the president’s power to control the federal government."
" 'It’s the logical endpoint to unitary executive theory,' said Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. 'Their desired end goal would be to arrive at a completely ‘at-will’ workforce. ... I think the administration is going to push the unitary executive idea as far as it can, and all of the signals it has been getting from the Supreme Court is to push further and push faster.' "
"While it’s unclear whether the Trump administration will ask the current court to dismantle the federal civil service system, some experts say the justices’ deference to Trump in firing-related cases is egging the administration on."
" 'This is the real-world implication of the path that the Supreme Court is on. It’s not an academic exercise,' said Max Stier of the Partnership for Public Service. One hopes that they recognize that, whatever interest they’ve had in theory, in practice they’re unleashing an autocracy. And the further down that road they go, the worse it will be. It’s bad already.' "
The Supreme Court weighs another step in favor of broad presidential power sought by Trump
Comment: "Chief Justice John Roberts has led the Supreme Court's conservative majority on a steady march of increasing the power of the presidency, starting well before Donald Trump's time in the White House."
"The justices could take the next step in a case being argued Monday that calls for a unanimous 90-year-old decision limiting executive authority to be overturned."
"The court's conservatives, liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted in September, seem to be 'raring to take that action'."
"They already have allowed Trump, in the opening months of the Republican's second term, to fire almost everyone he has wanted, despite the court's 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor that prohibits the president from removing the heads of independent agencies without cause."
"The officials include Rebecca Slaughter, whose firing from the Federal Trade Commission is at issue in the current case, as well as officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission."
Comment: "Humphrey's Executor has long been a target of the conservative legal movement that has embraced an expansive view of presidential power known as the unitary executive."
Comment: "The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the air waves and much else."
"Proponents of the unitary executive theory have said the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong: Federal agencies that are part of the executive branch answer to the president, and that includes the ability to fire their leaders at will."
Comment: Do you believe that the President (one man) should be allowed to fire anyone at will, without cause? In periods before Civil Service, government jobs were awarded for political party loyalty rather than for expertise or merit. Do we want to return to those corrupt times?
US Supreme Court may be poised to ditch more of its precedents
Comment: "The U.S. Supreme Court has given itself more opportunities in the coming months to overturn its own past rulings, a signal that its conservative justices are rethinking how much allegiance they owe to legal precedents set years ago by the nation's top judicial body."
"A case being argued on Monday involves one of the precedents now in the crosshairs before the court, whose 6-3 conservative majority has moved American law dramatically rightward in recent years including by overturning past decisions like in the 2022 case that rolled back abortion rights."
"A 1935 precedent that limited presidential powers is at issue in Monday's case, a challenge to the legality of President Donald Trump's firing of an official in a federal agency set up by Congress with safeguards against presidential interference. Trump's Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to ditch the precedent, an action that would expand the Republican president's authority."
" 'This is going to be another blockbuster term where we'll see whether legal precedent - and the central principle that the court's holdings in previous opinions should bind its decision making today - remains a constraining force at all,' said Wilfred Codrington, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York."
Comment: "A bedrock legal doctrine called 'stare decisis,' Latin for 'to stand by things decided,' calls upon courts to respect their prior precedents when resolving new cases on similar matters. A basic tenet of U.S. law is that stare decisis promotes consistency and predictability in the law."
Supreme Court hands Trump major win in redistricting fight
https://thehill.com/newsletters/morning-report/5634977-trump-win-texas-redistricting-supreme-court/
Comment: "President Trump scored a major win in the national redistricting battle on Thursday, as the Supreme Court restored a new congressional map that Texas lawmakers passed earlier this year that aims to give the GOP up to five additional seats in next year’s midterm elections."
"The majority ruled that a lower court likely erred when it threw out the map as a racial gerrymander and 'improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.' "
"The decision, made over the dissent of the court’s three liberal justices, likely won’t be the court’s final word on the map but effectively allows Texas to use it for the upcoming midterm cycle while the appeals process plays out."
"Trump began what has become a national redistricting war when he called on Texas Republicans to pass a new map, in response to political headwinds that threaten the GOP House majority in his final two years in office."
CNN: Supreme Court agrees to decide if Trump may end birthright citizenship
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-birthright
Video: Supreme Court agrees to hear case on Trump's birthright citizenship order - December 5, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0deR-4deA
What longstanding legal precedent says about birthright citizenship and the process to restrict it: Analysis
Comment: "When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump administration's petitions seeking to resurrect Executive Order 14160 -- the president's sweeping attempt to gut the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship -- it effectively placed one of the Constitution's most settled commitments on the docket."
"The administration frames the dispute as a long-overdue 'correction' to an overly generous citizenship regime, but the legal reality is far clearer: the executive order is an impossible fit with the text, history, and precedent surrounding the Citizenship Clause."
"The path to revising that clause is laid out plainly in the document itself -- not through executive decree, but through the arduous process of amending the Constitution. Those seeking to restrict birthright citizenship are free to attempt that route. What they cannot do is act as though a presidential signature can silently rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment."
Comment: If the current Supreme Court can somehow justify overturning birthright citizenship, then they are capable of justifying anything. If this occurs, then we are lost, until citizens rise up and remove those who are too cowardly or jaded to defend the constitution they swore an oath to.
4 cases to watch as Supreme Court gears up for December session
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5624114-supreme-court-trump-agencies-fight/
Judge dismisses Georgia criminal case against Donald Trump
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/26/georgia-donald-trump-electon-case-00669703
Judge Dismisses Georgia Election Interference Case Against Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/us/trump-georgia-election-racketeering.html
Comment: "A judge in Georgia dismissed the last pending criminal prosecution against President Trump on Wednesday, effectively ending efforts to hold him criminally responsible for attempts to overturn the 2020 election."
"The president has now seen three criminal cases against him dissolve since he was re-elected last year. Charges were also dropped against Mr. Trump’s remaining co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, his former personal lawyer, and Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff."
"The Georgia case had been seen as one of the most serious legal threats to Mr. Trump, because state criminal convictions are not subject to presidential pardons."
"A motion to end the prosecution was filed Wednesday morning by Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of the state’s nonpartisan prosecutor council. In his 22-page filing, Mr. Skandalakis, a career prosecutor who ran for office early in his career as a Democrat but later as a Republican, shredded the case originally brought by Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, taking it apart charge by charge. He asserted that 'it is not illegal to question or challenge election results.' "
"Mr. Skandalakis concluded that the federal inquiry undertaken by Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department under President Biden, was the more appropriate venue for an investigation of Mr. Trump’s attempts to stay in power after the 2020 election. He added that the idea of pursuing a case against a sitting president in Georgia was impractical."
"He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which granted presidents 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution for acts within their constitutional authority, meant that it would take 'months, if not years' to litigate immunity issues in the Georgia courts — and that all of that would have to occur after Mr. Trump leaves office in 2029."
"Bringing this case before a jury in 2029, 2030 or even 2031 would be nothing short of a remarkable feat,' Mr. Skandalakis wrote, adding that “the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years.' "
Comment: So the question of dropping the case was not a legal question, but a question of practicality. One has to be disappointed in our legal system, at both the federal and state level. One fears that when the judicial system doesn't allow citizens to seek justice, certain individuals may decide to seek justice by non-judicial means. This would be disasterous and could start the complete breakdown of law & order.
Supreme Court poised to reshape next 3 election cycles
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/26/texas-supreme-court-2026-maps-gerrymandering
"Fear is the tool of a tyrant": Exiting Justice Department workers sound alarms
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/24/doj-resignation-letters-page-trump-administration-firings
Comment: "An exodus of Justice Department employees has left behind a trail of emotional farewell notes warning that agency values are eroding."
Comment: "The writers, who are among the thousands who have departed the DOJ under Trump 2.0, did not mince words about 'potentially irreversible damage,' a retreat from ethics, a 'toxic work environment' and potential harm to vulnerable groups.' "
Samuel Alito’s Order on Texas Election Map Challenged at Supreme Court
https://www.newsweek.com/samuel-alito-texas-election-map-supreme-court-challenge-11100706
Comment: "Voting-rights groups on Monday filed a new challenge to Justice Samuel Alito’s order allowing Texas to use its newly drawn congressional map, telling the U.S. Supreme Court the state’s plan is an 'extraordinary' case of racial gerrymandering that cannot be shielded by the Purcell principle."
"The complaint, submitted days after Alito temporarily reinstated the Republican-favored map, argues the lower court was correct in finding that Black and Hispanic voters were likely to prevail on claims that the 2026 district lines dilute minority voting power."
Comment: "If the lower court ruling ultimately prevails, Texas could be forced to revert to the 2021 map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature using 2020 census data. The Supreme Court’s decision in the coming days will determine whether the 2026 map remains intact while litigation continues."
Supreme court blocks order that found Texas congressional map was probably racially biased
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/22/supreme-court-texas-congressional-map
Alito pauses lower court ruling that would have blocked Texas redistricting
Supreme Court temporarily reinstates Texas Republicans' redrawn congressional map
Comment: "The move will, for now, allow Texas to use the new district lines that a federal court blocked earlier this week as the Supreme Court reviews the case."
CNN: Supreme Court pauses lower court order that blocked Texas’ new congressional maps
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/21/politics/texas-supreme-court-congressional-redistricting
Supreme Court set to wade into a case that could tip the scales for the midterms
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/19/supreme-court-texas-redistricting-case-00659035
Comment: "A lower court order on Texas’ new congressional map has made its way to the high court. It could be the first of several mid-decade redistricting pushes."
Comment: "Control of Congress — and the fate of President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda — could come down to a single, urgent decision that landed this week at the Supreme Court’s doorstep."
"A lower court ruling striking down Texas’ new congressional map abruptly thrust the justices into a battle they appeared to be trying to avoid: effectively deciding whether to give the midterm boost to Republicans or Democrats. And the decision goes beyond control of the speaker’s gavel. If Democrats retake the House, Trump will spend his final two years in office under a hail of subpoenas and with little leverage to pursue his policy imperatives."
"Compounding the stakes for the justices’ ruling is a fast-approaching filing deadline. Texas candidates must declare their bids for Congress by Dec. 8, and already several who were eyeing the newly drawn map have started campaigning."
"While the justices have been wrangling with thorny election-related legal issues for years — including another major redistricting case the court delayed in October — many analysts suspected the court would steer clear of cases seen as tilting the landscape in one party’s favor in next fall’s elections."
"That 'lay low' option seemed to evaporate Tuesday when a divided panel of federal judges in Texas ruled that the map the state’s GOP-controlled legislature adopted in August at Trump’s urging was likely racially gerrymandered and thus unconstitutional. The panel ruled that the map, which made five districts in the state more favorable to Republicans, cannot be used next year and reverted to congressional boundaries drawn in 2021. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott raced to the Supreme Court hours after the ruling."
Supreme Court rejects challenge to gay marriage decision
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/10/supreme-court-rejects-same-sex-marriage-challenge
Justices decline case seeking to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case-00644386
Supreme Court teases taking away Trump’s favorite foreign policy tool - POLITICO
Video: Supreme Court appears skeptical of tariffs argument - November 5, 2025
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp-video/mmvo251424325589
CNN: Takeaways from Trump’s rocky Supreme Court arguments over global tariffs
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-tariffs-trump
Video: Chief Justice Roberts and Solicitor General Sauer argue Trump's tariffs - November 5, 2025
Video: Supreme Court hears arguments for the Trump administration's tariffs - November 5, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niwDNOunvEo
The tariff case puts the Supreme Court’s conservatives in a bind
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/donald-trump-tariffs-case-supreme-court-arguments-00635882
Comment: "The looming Supreme Court showdown over President Donald Trump’s tariffs amounts to an epic clash between two of the most deeply ingrained tenets of the conservative legal movement."
"The first is that presidents need and are entitled to extreme deference on matters of national security and foreign policy. That precept suggests the six conservative justices may be willing to uphold Trump’s unprecedented move to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose sweeping global tariffs."
"On the other hand, an indisputable hallmark of the Roberts court is a deep mistrust for government meddling in the free market. That ideological predilection, which has fueled a slew of pro-business, anti-regulatory rulings, could prompt the court’s conservatives to view Trump’s tariffs more skeptically than they view many of his other, non-economic policies."
" 'I think that some of the justices that matter are going to feel a bit torn,' said Jonathan Adler, a professor at William and Mary Law School. 'What’s interesting here is that this case requires some of the conservative justices to confront a conflict between different strands of their own jurisprudence.' "
"In the case set for oral arguments Wednesday, Trump is asking the justices to overturn lower-court decisions that declared many of the tariffs — the centerpiece of Trump’s economic agenda — an illegal overreach. The lower courts found that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not authorize the president to impose such broad tariffs."
Comment: "Lurking just below the surface in the case is a key dynamic: Should Trump’s tariffs be treated as a garden-variety economic policy, or are they a core part of the president’s management of international relations and national security?"
Comment: What about the basic "separation of powers" argument that Congress has the sole authority to levy taxes? One could argue that Trump chose to tie his tariffs to issues of "international relations and national security". One could argue that there was no "national emergency" justifying the tariffs. One could argue that it was a choice by Trump. It was a choice Trump didn't have to make. Hope those arguments are articulated.
Supreme Court enters the lion's den on Trump tariffs
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/05/nx-s1-5592338/trump-tariffs-supreme-court
Holder pushes Democrats to consider reforming ‘broken’ Supreme Court
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5589304-eric-holder-supreme-court-reform/
A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-tariffs-7c44eedbf32bec35fc638e9953db2aeb
Comment: "A major question hangs over the Supreme Court’s closely watched case on President Donald Trump’s far-reaching tariffs: Will the conservative majority hold the Republican president to the same exacting standards it used to limit his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden?"
"Key legal principles at the heart of conservative challenges to major initiatives in the Biden years are driving the arguments in the fight against Trump’s tariffs, which is set for arguments at the high court on Wednesday."
"The businesses and states that sued over the tariffs are even name-checking the three Trump-appointed conservative justices whose votes they hope to attract to stop a centerpiece of Trump’s economic agenda in a key test of presidential power."
CNN: Trade deals and $90 billion in tariff revenue: What’s riding on the landmark Supreme Court case kicking off this week
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/02/economy/scotus-trump-tariffs
Comment: On the other hand, Congress' "power of the purse" and constitutional separation of powers is also on the line. If Trump can unilaterally usurp Congress' authority to levy tariffs, by declaring a series of phony "emergencies," the power of Congress and our system of government is greatly weakened.
Tariffs are Trump’s favorite foreign policy tool. The Supreme Court could change how he uses them
Comment: Important information. Please read linked article.
For News Articles links from before November 1st, 2025, please go to one of the following, depending on the article date:
https://sites.google.com/view/dem3oldnews/home/old3-supreme-court-equality-fair-justice
https://sites.google.com/view/dem2oldnews/home/old2-supreme-court-equality-fair-justice
OR
https://sites.google.com/view/demoldnews/home/old-equality-fair-justice
There you will find a continuation of the news links & comments from the period prior to November 1, 2025. The article history can be viewed as follows:
www.dalecodemocrats.com (latest)
sites.google.com/view/dem3oldnews/home/ (May 1, 2025 - October 31, 2025)
sites.google.com/view/dem2oldnews/home/ (Nov 2024 election - April 30, 2025)
sites.google.com/view/demoldnews/home/ (Prior to 2024 election)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse