The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency order to maintain its hold on billions of dollars in frozen foreign aid. President Trump employed a pocket rescission, which effectively cut the budget without congressional approval. The central legal dispute revolves around $4 billion in congressionally approved aid that Trump stated he would not spend, citing a rarely used authority. The administration argues that the lower court’s injunctions harm the executive branch, while the opposition claims the funding freeze violates federal law and hampers critical international programs.
Read More
In 20 years under John Roberts, a dramatic rightward turn for the US Supreme Court has become painfully clear. The evolution of the court, particularly under his leadership, has been marked by a significant shift in its ideological direction, a move that has dramatically altered the landscape of American jurisprudence and, arguably, the very fabric of the nation. This transformation, as observed over two decades, represents a departure from the court’s historical role as a neutral arbiter and has led to deep concerns about its impartiality and the potential for long-term damage to the principles of fairness and equal justice.
The concerns regarding the Roberts court’s trajectory were flagged early on.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court has decided to allow federal agents to continue with sweeping immigration operations in Los Angeles for now, overturning a judge’s order that had limited the practice. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion that the lower court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were too broad, although he noted that apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, claiming the decision subjects people in the Los Angeles area to potential mistreatment based on their appearance. The ruling comes as ICE agents increase enforcement, with the lawsuit continuing in California.
Read More
US could be forced to refund ‘about half’ of tariffs if SCOTUS rules against Trump, Bessent says, and the implications are rather complex, to put it mildly. The prospect of potentially having to give back a substantial portion of the tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, in the event of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, raises a lot of questions, and understandably sparks a range of reactions.
The initial gut reaction is often a mixture of frustration and cynicism, especially regarding the fate of the refunds. The common sentiment seems to be that the companies, not the everyday consumers who ultimately bore the cost through increased prices, would likely be the beneficiaries.… Continue reading
In a recent ruling, Israel’s Supreme Court determined the government failed to provide Palestinian security prisoners with adequate food, ordering improvements to their nutrition. This decision addressed a petition from rights groups alleging that post-war policy changes led to malnutrition and starvation. The court found insufficient food supply, citing doubts about prisoners’ ability to eat properly and mandating the provision of food for basic subsistence. Despite the ruling, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir criticized the decision, vowing to maintain minimal conditions for prisoners, a stance that drew condemnation from rights groups like ACRI.
Read More
The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of his tariff policies, despite rulings against them from two lower federal courts. The petition itself presents factual claims that, if taken seriously, would likely lead the Court to strike down the tariffs under the “major questions doctrine.” However, the Court’s Republican justices have seemingly used this doctrine inconsistently, applying it against Democratic President Biden while potentially seeking a way to exempt Trump. This doctrine has no legal basis and appears to be a tool used selectively to invalidate policies, potentially offering an exception for foreign policy decisions.
Read More
Following a federal appeals court ruling that deemed his trade tariffs illegal, Donald Trump has appealed to the US Supreme Court. The court’s decision last week centered on the “liberation day” border taxes implemented on most US imports, which the court found overstepped his presidential powers. Trump’s administration has requested an accelerated schedule, aiming for arguments by November and a ruling by year-end, as a defeat could significantly impact the US tariff rate and existing trade deals. The tariffs were implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though this has been contested, and several companies have already reported negative effects of the tariffs, including a slump in sales.
Read More
President Trump’s tariffs, which imposed duties as high as 145% on some countries, face a Supreme Court challenge after a federal appeals court ruled they were unlawfully enacted. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, the Treasury could be forced to refund over $210 billion in tariff revenue to American businesses. While businesses await potential refunds, economic experts caution that such a move could lead to increased government borrowing and potentially fuel inflation. Therefore, the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of the tariffs has wide-ranging implications for both businesses and the overall economy.
Read More
The Brazilian Supreme Court commenced a five-day trial phase to determine the fate of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who faces a potential 43-year prison sentence for allegedly plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election. Judge Alexandre Moraes emphasized the court’s independence from external pressures, as Bolsonaro stands accused of attempting to establish a “real dictatorship” through a “criminal organization” seeking to overturn the election results. The charges include orchestrating a plan to declare a state of emergency and assassinate political rivals, with the court’s final decision expected by September 12. The proceedings, viewed as a critical test of democracy, have already sparked tension with the United States, while Bolsonaro’s supporters and detractors clashed outside his residence.
Read More
The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, citing the act was improperly invoked. The court determined that Trump’s claims of a “predatory incursion” or “invasion” by the gang did not meet the criteria for using the wartime authority. This ruling, likely to reach the Supreme Court, represents the first appellate court to closely examine the issue. While the court found the notice period compliant, a dissenting judge argued the required seven-day notice did not sufficiently provide due process to unrepresented detainees.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood