Legal scholar Lisa Graves argues in her book, “Without Precedent,” that Chief Justice John Roberts has actively undermined American democracy to serve Trump’s agenda. Roberts, who once promised that no one is above the law, has consistently acted in ways that favor Trump, including decisions on presidential immunity and voting rights. This capture of the Supreme Court has been orchestrated by the right-wing legal movement, particularly the Federalist Society, resulting in a court that is out of step with the American people. Roberts’ actions, according to Graves, position him as a “Trumpire” bending the rules to aid Trump and consolidate Republican power.
Read More
The Supreme Court is currently hearing *Trump v. Illinois*, a case regarding President Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard to quell protests outside an immigration detention facility. Trump argues his authority to control the National Guard is exclusive and non-reviewable by courts, citing federal law allowing such action in cases of rebellion or inability to execute laws. However, lower courts have ruled against Trump, finding the situation doesn’t meet the legal requirements for military intervention. The crux of the case lies in whether the Supreme Court will limit Trump’s power or grant him broad authority to use military personnel domestically, especially considering the current court’s composition and past rulings.
Read More
The Supreme Court is poised to consider a challenge from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk, regarding the legality of same-sex marriage. Davis, who previously defied court orders and was briefly jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is petitioning the court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. A 2024 Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, though partisan divides persist. The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case, with a decision expected as early as November 10, potentially setting up a significant moment for LGBTQ+ rights.
Read More
The Supreme Court is set to consider Kim Davis’ challenge to same-sex marriage at a private conference, marking the first time the justices will deliberate on the case. Davis, a former Kentucky clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, leading to a lawsuit and a subsequent jury awarding damages to the couple. The 6th Circuit rejected Davis’ appeal, citing that she was acting on behalf of the government, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Davis has requested the Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing her religious beliefs were violated.
Read More
Recent Supreme Court decisions have granted the president significant control over the executive branch, effectively allowing President Trump to demand the Justice Department transfer $230 million in taxpayer funds to his personal account. This power stems from the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the Constitution under Chief Justice John Roberts, establishing a unitary executive theory. While Trump claims these payments are compensation for investigations into his past actions, the article questions the ethical implications, especially as the DOJ officials involved were formerly Trump’s lawyers. This situation illustrates concerns about corruption and the potential for Trump to exploit this power for personal gain, with further implications if he gains control of other government entities like the Federal Reserve.
Read More
A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Defense must return books about race and gender to school libraries on military bases after the removal of nearly 600 books sparked a lawsuit. The students, children of active-duty service members, alleged their First Amendment rights were violated due to the removal of books covering topics such as sexual identity and racism. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on behalf of the families, arguing the removals stemmed from partisan motivations related to executive orders prohibiting materials promoting “gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology” and guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles sided with the students, citing “improper partisan motivation” and ordering the restoration of the removed materials.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether regular marijuana users can legally own firearms, following a 2022 decision that expanded gun rights. The case involves a Texas man charged with a felony for possessing a gun while admitting to regular marijuana use, with the Justice Department appealing a lower court’s decision that struck down the ban. The government argues the ban is a justifiable restriction, while the defense argues it puts millions at risk due to varying state laws regarding marijuana. This case is another test of the Supreme Court’s new approach to firearm restrictions, which requires restrictions to have a strong historical grounding.
Read More
Voting Rights Act faces a near-death experience at US Supreme Court
The specter of “taxation without representation” hangs heavy over the discussion of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The very foundation of a democratic society is challenged when the ability to choose representatives is undermined, and gerrymandering, with its power to distort the democratic process, is at the heart of the problem. This is a battleground where the Supreme Court’s decisions will have far-reaching consequences.
The Supreme Court, particularly the current, conservative-leaning majority, is seen by many as actively working towards solidifying Republican power. There’s a palpable sense of urgency, with speculation swirling about the timing of any ruling.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court is projected to exhaust its funding on October 18, leading to a public closure of the building, though essential operations will continue. Federal courts are anticipated to run out of funds by October 20, prompting the continuation of essential activities, though staff may not be paid. Jury programs and the Public Access to Court Electronic Records will remain operational, and courts can use existing funds for limited additional work. Individual courts will decide case schedules, and the duration of the shutdown remains uncertain due to ongoing political disagreements.
Read More
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed in 2020, stated the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its rulings if a president chooses to ignore them, lacking the “power of the purse” and “power of the sword.” She discussed her legal theory of originalism and the ongoing debate surrounding executive power, specifically referencing the “unitary executive theory.” Barrett acknowledged that the court often makes decisions along partisan lines, though she maintains she is “nobody’s justice.” During the interview, she was hesitant to discuss what the court’s role might be in the face of an executive challenging its authority.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood