Supreme Court and Pursuit
Supreme Court and Pursuit
of Equality & Fair Justice
of Equality & Fair Justice
Embedded Files
NEXT MEETING: 05/11/26, 7 PM, OZARK-DALE LIBRARY
Focus On The Supreme Court, The Pursuit of Equality and A Fair Justice System:
The supreme court trusts America not to be racist. I don’t
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/03/racism-supreme-court-voting-right-act
Comment: "Six supreme court justices handed down a ruling built, ostensibly, on the belief that the US has changed so much as to render the protections of the Voting Rights Act unnecessary. No one should be that gullible."
Comment: "The ruling in Louisiana v Callais did not formally strike down section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The statute remains. What it can do does not. But strip away the procedural language and the ruling rests on a single premise: that America has changed enough that these protections are no longer necessary. Justice Alito wrote that 'social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South.' John Roberts has been making this argument since he was in Ronald Reagan’s justice department. It is the core of their position, and it deserves scrutiny."
"Between 2012 and 2022, the racial turnout gap between white and nonwhite voters has widened, reaching 18 percentage points by 2022. The gap grew almost twice as fast in the very counties that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act once protected."
"Louisiana has never elected a Black congressperson from a non-majority-Black district. Not once. The mechanism the court just destroyed is, more or less, the only reason Black representation in that state has ever existed. The court removed the umbrella and declared the storm over. The storm did not get the memo."
"The court has essentially ruled that unless a legislator records a confession of their own bigotry, the map is constitutional – making the only person allowed to define a racist act the person committing it. Congress understood the absurdity of this in 1982, which is why legislators wrote an effects-based standard into the law. Discrimination does not announce itself. The intent standard is the cloak of the coward."
The Supreme Court keeps overturning precedent. It swears that it’s not | CNN Politics - 5/03
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/03/politics/supreme-court-overturning-precedent-voting-rights-act
How redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races - 5/03
Comment: "The number of competitive U.S. House of Representatives districts in this fall’s midterm elections was already near historic lows before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday opened the door to even more aggressive efforts to draw district lines for political gain."
Comment: "The court’s ruling, which arrived amid what was already an unprecedented national fight over congressional redistricting, may usher in a new era of nakedly partisan gerrymandering that results in still fewer competitive elections, leaving voters with less power than ever, experts said."
The supreme court’s voting rights decision wasn’t about law – it was about politics - 5/01
Comment: "The supreme court justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have made it their life’s work to unravel the Voting Rights Act and undo the most effective civil rights legislation in American history."
"On Wednesday, they finished the job."
"In a 6-3, party line decision in Callais v Louisiana, based on politics, not law, the US supreme court in effect erased the remaining provisions of section 2 of the VRA, which had protected minority voters against racial gerrymandering and vote dilution."
"They invited Republican state legislatures to draw new congressional maps that will probably create a solid red south, the largest reduction in Black political representation since the death of Reconstruction – a loss of as many as 19 seats in the US House and nearly 200 state legislative seats nationwide – and dramatically remake the balance of power in favor of Republicans."
Voting rights advocates vow to ‘relocate’ fight after supreme court gutting - 4/30
Comment: " 'If section 2 gets weakened, you’re going to see a shift towards a lot of state-level strategies,' Hardy said. 'You’re going to see more localized litigation, deepened investment in on-the-ground organizing. We’re realising that when federal protections are narrowed or become less reliable, which they have, unfortunately, the fight doesn’t stop. It ultimately relocates.' "
" 'If section 2 is weakened, the states are going to become the primary terrain for both protection and contestation,' she added."
John Roberts’ effort to gut the Voting Rights Act is complete | CNN Politics - 4/30
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/30/politics/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-race-protections
Supreme Court paves the way for largest-ever drop in Black representation in Congress - 4/30
https://www.npr.org/2026/04/30/nx-s1-5805050/supreme-court-voting-rights-congressional-black-caucus
Supreme Court hollows out a landmark law that had protected minority voting rights for 6 decades - 4/30
Comment: "On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a major pillar of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. It was a decision that came more than a decade after the court undermined another key tenet of the law and led to restrictive voting laws in a number of states. Voting and civil rights advocates were left fearful of what lies ahead for minority communities."
Comment: "It was Aug. 6, 1965, five months after the 'Bloody Sunday' attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, gave momentum to the bill that became known as the Voting Rights Act."
"In the six decades since, it became one of the most consequential laws in the nation’s history, preventing discrimination against minorities at the ballot box and helping to elect thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives at all levels of government."
Comment: "In a surprise ruling in 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Section 2 in a redistricting case out of Alabama, a ruling that it essentially reversed on Wednesday."
"The question now is what comes next, for minority representatives and the communities they represent."
Comment: "Shomari Figures, who won the seat created in Alabama after the court’s 2023 decision, said the decision doesn’t make changes to that state’s current congressional districts, but it has made proving future racial discrimination in redistricting cases significantly tougher."
“ 'It will lead to states, primarily in the South, launching immediate efforts to redraw districts in ways that will dilute the impact of Black voters and drastically reduce the number of realistic opportunities to elect Black members to Congress,' he said."
"Shalela Dowdy, an Alabama resident who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit that resulted in the creation of a new district now represented by Figures, said she is worried the decision will lead to the rollback of the district created in 2023, which she said gave Black voters a greater voice."
Comment: One hopes that Shomari Figures is correct that his recently created congressional district is upheld. However, Alabama Governor Kay Ivy has called a special session of the Alabama legislature to create a "trigger law," to quickly redraw Alabama Congressional districts and delay the 2026 primary election dates should the courts allow them to do so. Alabama Republicans seem anxious to do anything (including spending your tax dollars) in the hope that they can restrict minority representation and gain a political advantage for the Republican Party.
Blackburn pitches 9-0 GOP map for Tennessee after Supreme Court decision - 4/29
Comment: "U.S. Sen. Marsh Blackburn wants to redraw Tennessee's congressional map to eliminate the state's only remaining Democratic district."
Comment: "A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday said legislatures no longer have to consider race when drawing district boundaries. The decision opens the door to splitting up majority-Black districts across the country."
AG candidate says Marquette prosecution is wrong, sees push back from Madison DA - 4/21
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ag-candidate-says-marquette-prosecution-003012779.html
Comment: "An Alabama attorney general candidate is weighing in on the high-profile case of a former Decatur police officer charged with murder, and those comments have drawn a critical response from a North Alabama district attorney."
"Candidate Jay Mitchell, who is a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, is calling on the Alabama Attorney General to end the prosecution of former Decatur Police Officer Mac Marquette. Marquette is charged with killing Stephen Perkins during a botched car repossession in 2023."
Comment: "Mitchell said Marquette’s actions were in self-defense, despite two Alabama courts reviewing the evidence and finding that Marquette did not act in self-defense."
Comment: "Mitchell wrote his opinion piece on April 6, detailing his views on officer-involved cases across the state, drawing examples from both Marquette’s case and the case of a 2016 Montgomery police officer, Aaron Cody Smith, who was charged with murder. Mitchell titled his piece, 'Alabama’s war on good cops must end'.”
Comment: "Mitchell’s view caught Madison County District Attorney Robert Broussard’s attention."
Comment: "Broussard told News 19 that he is not a 'politician or a podcaster' and has been in the difficult position of having to prosecute officer-involved cases. He said it is the responsibility of the District Attorney’s Office to uphold the U.S. Constitution with no exceptions."
"Broussard said the judicial system must be protected, and added that he does not believe cases of this nature should be in the realm of political campaigning."
"In his written response to Mitchell, Broussard said that no District Attorney has any political gain in prosecuting an officer, but notes that the role upholds the law."
Comment: "Marquette’s self-defense claim is currently being reviewed by the Alabama Supreme Court."
Supreme Court will decide if preschools that decline children of same-sex couples may receive state funding | CNN Politics
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/20/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-preschool
CNN: Trump leans in on a major 2026 issue: possibly replacing Justices Alito and Thomas
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/16/politics/supreme-court-trump-alito-thomas
Trump ‘prepared’ to nominate new Supreme Court justice if Alito, Thomas retire - 4/15
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5831975-trump-prepared-name-supreme-justice/
Comment: "President Trump said he is 'prepared' to name another justice to the Supreme Court if one of the older members retires."
"No justice has suggested they plan to step down from their lifetime appointment, but there has been speculation surrounding Justice Samuel Alito, 76, who was hospitalized in March."
Comment: "Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters Tuesday the GOP would be prepared to confirm a Supreme Court vacancy if one opened before the midterms, according to Politico."
"It would be ideal for the administration to get its Supreme Court pick in before the midterms while Republicans still maintain the Senate majority."
Comment: Could this be a Trump hint for Alito (and/or Thomas') to retire so that he and MAGA Republicans can influence the Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years by letting Trump select yet another Supreme Court justice? Thune seems to suggest that now would be a good time, so that Republicans (controlling the Senate) could rush the confirmation prior to the midterm elections.
Justice Jackson calls out Supreme Court conservatives' pro-Trump emergency orders - 4/15
Ketanji Brown Jackson condemns conservative justices’ pro-Trump orders
Comment: "The supreme court justice Kentani Brown Jackson has delivered a sustained attack on her conservative colleagues’ use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration, calling the orders 'scratch-paper musings' that can 'seem oblivious and thus ring hollow'."
"Jackson, the court's newest justice, delivered a lengthy assessment of roughly two dozen court orders issued last year that allowed Donald Trump to put in place controversial policies on immigration, steep federal funding cuts and other topics, after lower courts found they were probably illegal."
"While designed to be short-term, those orders have largely allowed the US president to move ahead, for now, with key parts of his sweeping conservative agenda."
Justice Jackson chides Supreme Court conservatives over ‘oblivious’ pro-Trump emergency orders - 4/15
Sotomayor: Supreme Court emergency docket appeals by Trump ‘unprecedented’ - 4/10
https://thehill.com/homenews/5825692-sotomayor-trump-emergency-docket/
Sotomayor blames colleagues for slew of Supreme Court emergency appeals
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/09/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-emergency-appeals-00866255
Comment: "The Supreme Court has itself to blame for the flood of emergency appeals it’s now receiving, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday."
Comment: "The Trump administration has filed about 30 emergency applications with the Supreme Court over the past 15 months, winning more than 80 percent of them. Many of those decisions split the court, 6-3, along ideological lines."
Comment: " 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' she wrote."
"Critics have faulted the high court for resolving too many weighty disputes on its emergency or 'shadow' docket, often with little or no explanation from the majority for its rulings."
Supreme Court clears the way for Bannon contempt case to be dismissed
https://www.npr.org/2026/04/06/nx-s1-5647647/supreme-court-bannon
Comment: "Bannon had asked the Supreme Court to vacate his prior conviction because he did not 'willfully' defy the subpoena, a necessary requirement to be found guilty of contempt of Congress. He maintains that he relied on the advice of his lawyer that his testimony was protected by President Trump's executive privilege."
Video: Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship - April 01, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sedYNmeOxXQ
What's at risk if SCOTUS sides with Trump in birthright citizenship case
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/01/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court
Video: Supreme Court will hear arguments over Trump’s birthright citizenship order - March 30, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpiZWRKGhvg
Police Used AI To Arrest a Tennessee Woman for Crimes in a State She Says She Never Visited. This Tattoo Case Shows Why That Keeps Happening - 3/30
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/police-used-ai-arrest-tennessee-112050125.html
CNN: Police used AI facial recognition to arrest a Tennessee woman for crimes committed in a state she says she’s never visited
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/us/angela-lipps-ai-facial-recognition
Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship threatens ‘chaos’ in proving newborns’ status | CNN Politics
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/politics/trump-birthright-case-us-citizen
Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man - 3/29
Video: Supreme Court will decide whether states can keep counting late mail ballots - March 23, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2alSpT2OPes
Federal prosecutors ask to dismiss charges against officers in Breonna Taylor raid
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/20/nx-s1-5755069/breonna-taylor-raid-officers-federal-charges
Video: Chief Justice Roberts says hostility toward judges is dangerous - March 17, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EiU3bdXOJ0
___________________________________________________________________
Poll: Confidence in the Supreme Court drops to a record low
Comment: "The percentage of voters with significant levels of confidence in the Supreme Court has dropped to its lowest point since NBC News began polling on the question in 2000, according to the most recent survey.
"The latest NBC News poll shows that 22% of registered voters nationally said they have a 'great deal' or 'quite a bit' of confidence in the high court. Another 40% said they had 'some' confidence, while 38% said they had 'very little' or 'no' confidence."
US attorneys handpicked by Pam Bondi were appointed illegally, judge rules
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/10/attorneys-appointed-pam-bondi-trump
Comment: "Federal judge said prosecutors picked to replace Alina Habba repeated error of bypassing congressional approval"
Judges say ICE, DOJ leaders are putting rank-and-file lawyers in ‘an impossible position’
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/10/court-orders-ice-justice-department-00821241
Comment: "Federal judges livid over missed deadlines and outright defiance of their orders in a sea of immigration cases are training their ire on the Justice Department’s political leadership, going out of their way to acknowledge that the rank-and-file lawyers arguing in front of them are sometimes powerless to change the administration’s behavior."
"Judges in several states have recently taken pains to separate these attorneys from their bosses in Washington — and from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which they see as increasingly responsible, and unremorseful, for the rampant violations amid President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push."
"The dynamic has crystallized amid a deluge of emergency lawsuits filed by ICE detainees, which have overwhelmed court dockets and frustrated judges — who have overwhelmingly rejected ICE’s detention practices as illegal."
"The flood has, in turn, put DOJ’s line attorneys in uncomfortable spots. They’re being thrust into courtrooms without specifics, often asked to defend ICE’s detentions without details and sometimes without being able to reach their ICE counterparts to get information. They’ve missed deadlines and been scolded by judges for offering boilerplate arguments. Some DOJ attorneys have resigned or been fired, further straining understaffed offices."
"It’s all coming to a boil in courtrooms across the country."
Supreme Court Justices Jackson and Kavanaugh clash over handling of Trump cases
Comment: "Internal Supreme Court divisions over how the high court has frequently ruled in favor of the Trump administration in emergency situations spilled out into public Monday with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh locking horns."
"The court's conservative majority has on a regular basis blocked lower court rulings that have stymied President Donald Trump's agenda, sparking criticism from within and outside the judiciary."
"Jackson, often a vocal dissenter in those cases, forcefully aired her critique of the court's actions in a rare public appearance with Kavanaugh at an event for lawyers and judges held at the federal courthouse in Washington."
"Bemoaning the recent increase in such emergency filings — requested to challenge lower court rulings — she suggested that the number of filings would drop if the court were stingier about granting them."
"The procedure has become known as the 'shadow docket' because the court rarely hears arguments and often issues terse decisions with little explanation. The Supreme Court decisions can allow policies to go into effect at early stages in legal challenges, long before lower courts have reached any definitive conclusions. The cases might then return to the Supreme Court later in the process, leading to final decisions on the merits."
"In the last year, the court has, among other things, allowed Trump to fire thousands of federal workers, assert control over previously independent federal agencies and implement various aspects of his hard-line immigration policy. All those moves, done through the shadow docket, had been blocked by lower courts. "
Video: Deputy attorney general calls court battles “a war” - March 5, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP1JsKJkDSo
Comment: "Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche says,'“We are routinely getting stays and getting reversals because of local judges just not following the law, full stop… It’s a war, man.' ”
"When asked if judges are thwarting the president's agenda, Judge John Coughenour says, 'You don’t understand what we do. We apply the Constitution.' ”
Infiltrating the Supreme Court
Comment: "A roundtable conversation with top Supreme Court reporters on secrecy at the court, the justices’ ethics and how they do their job at a crucial moment."
Comment: "President Donald Trump’s appointment of three justices to the court during his first term created a 6-3 conservative super-majority that is now in the process of fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law. Trump is also aggressively expanding presidential power in his second term, and although he recently suffered a major defeat in the tariff case, the conservative justices have thus far largely endorsed Trump’s efforts."
"At the same time, the media’s scrutiny of the court has become sharper and more wide-ranging — now regularly encompassing questions about the ethics, the intellectual integrity and even the partisan leanings of some of the justices."
___________________________________________________________________________________
This Supreme Court decision could upend millions in political spending ahead of the midterms. Here’s how the parties are preparing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/05/2026-elections-party-fundraising-ad-spending-00766172
Comment: "The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case, NRSC v. FEC, that could quietly but dramatically change how congressional elections are funded by giving political parties and their committees the ability to freely coordinate with candidates. The rules, if changed, would eliminate the need for “independent expenditure” operations for party committees — separate and firewalled arms of the committee that have spent a large chunk of campaign committees’ money since 2006, primarily on running TV advertising in the nation’s most competitive races."
Comment: "The court’s pending decision could open the floodgates to even more campaign ads from the national parties and extend the timeline of campaign advertising much earlier into the summer. That would give the parties greater power in making their case directly to voters ahead of the 2026 midterms and potentially play to Republicans’ benefit in this year’s elections."
Legal scholars raise concerns about internal ICE policy authorizing entry into homes without judicial warrants
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/legal-scholars-concerns-ice-policy-homes-warrants/
Comment: "That law enforcement would need such a warrant approved by a judge in order to enter a home is well-established legal precedent reiterated by the courts time and again, constitutional experts told WCCO news."
"Emmanuel Mauleón, associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota who specializes in the Fourth Amendment, said that administrative warrants authorize arrests, but that does not mean those arrests can happen inside a person's residence without their consent to enter."
" 'This has been long-standing Fourth Amendment interpretation. There has been no U.S. Supreme Court case ever that has found that an administrative warrant meets this bar,' Mauleón said. 'What I'll say is the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement is not a high bar, so that the idea that they can't even meet that is deeply troubling. Or the idea that they're not going to go about the process of seeking a warrant is deeply troubling.' "
"Jimmy Percival, general counsel for DHS, in an opinion piece published by the Wall Street Journal, defended the policy and said it was both reasonable and lawful."
Supreme Court doubtful of Trump claim he can fire Fed governors by fiat
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21/nx-s1-5683968/supreme-court-federal-reserve-lisa-cook
Video: Justice Department under Trump shifts focus to "reverse discrimination" - January 19, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXbhOx_JFuQ
Comment: "Since President Trump took office for the second time, his efforts to reshape the Justice Department have resulted in a new focus on so-called reverse discrimination. CBS News justice correspondent Scott MacFarlane has the details."
AP Source: Fed Chair Powell to attend Supreme Court argument on Cook case
Comment: "Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will attend the Supreme Court’s oral argument Wednesday in a case involving the attempted firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook, an unusual show of support by the central bank chair."
"The high court is considering whether President Donald Trump can fire Cook, as he said he would do in late August, in an unprecedented attempt to remove one of the seven members of the Fed’s governing board. Powell plans to attend the high court’s Wednesday session, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
Lawyers allege Dept. of Homeland Security is denying legal counsel to Minnesota detainees
Comment: "Thousands of people have been arrested during ICE operations in Minneapolis over the past two weeks. Multiple attorneys allege that for some of those detained, including at least one U.S. citizen, the Department of Homeland Security is denying their constitutional right to see an attorney."
"Four attorneys told ABC News they have been denied access to their clients at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, where they are being held, which they say would violate 5th and 6th Amendment rights to due process and the right to consult with counsel."
Why Bernice King sees MLK Day as a ‘saving grace’ in today’s political climate
https://apnews.com/article/mlk-holiday-bernice-king-a35864c47b88ab40254f45232a7568f6
Comment: "Against a backdrop of political division and upheaval, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter said the holiday honoring her father’s legacy comes as 'somewhat of a saving grace' this year."
" 'I say that because it inserts a sense of sanity and morality into our very troubling climate right now,' the Rev. Bernice King said in an interview with The Associated Press. 'With everything going on, the one thing that I think Dr. King reminds people of is hope and the ability to challenge injustice and inhumanity.' "
"The holiday comes as President Donald Trump is about to mark the first anniversary of his second term in office on Tuesday. The 'three evils'— poverty, racism and militarism — that the civil rights leader identified in a 1967 speech as threats to a democratic society 'are very present and manifesting through a lot of what’s happening' under Trump’s leadership, Bernice King said."
"King, CEO of the King Center in Atlanta, cited efforts to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; directives to scrub key parts of history from government websites and remove 'improper ideology' from Smithsonian museums; and immigration enforcement operations in multiple cities that have turned violent and resulted in the separation of families."
12 ways the Trump administration dismantled civil rights law and the foundations of inclusive democracy in its first year
Comment: "One year after Donald Trump’s second inauguration, a pattern emerges. Across dozens of executive orders, agency memos, funding decisions and enforcement changes, the administration has weakened federal civil rights law and the foundations of the country’s racially inclusive democracy."
Comment: "Rather than repealing civil rights statutes outright, the administration has focused on disabling the mechanisms that make those laws work."
Comment: This is an excellent and organized analysis. Please read the entire linked article to discover the 12 ways and the resultig consequences of Trump's actions.
Supreme Court takes up Bayer’s bid to limit Roundup weed killer liability
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5693313-supreme-court-bayer-pesticide-liability/
Federal judges allow California congressional map to stand
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/14/federal-judges-california-congressional-map-00729765
Comment: "The victory for Democrats seemed likely after the Supreme Court earlier in the month upheld Texas’ gerrymandered map."
Federal Judges Uphold California’s New Congressional Maps - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/us/politics/federal-court-california-redistricting-decision.html
Comment: "A federal court on Wednesday rejected Republicans’ claim that California’s new congressional maps were unconstitutional, upholding a voter-approved plan intended to benefit Democrats in this year’s midterm elections."
E. Jean Carroll asks Supreme Court to reject Trump's request to review her $5M defamation case
Comment: "Trump was found liable in 2023 of sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s."
Powell probe comes as SCOTUS weighs Trump's power to fire
https://www.axios.com/2026/01/13/trump-federal-reserve-fight-supreme-court
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